linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: lan9662-otpc: document Lan9662 OTPC

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 30 Aug 2022 13:10:17 +0300
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>
Cc:     devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: lan9662-otpc: document Lan9662 OTPC

On 29/08/2022 09:35, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
> The 08/26/2022 20:37, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>
>> On 26/08/2022 10:31, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
>>> The 08/26/2022 09:42, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>>
>>>>> +properties:
>>>>> +  compatible:
>>>>> +    items:
>>>>> +      - const: microchip,lan9662-otpc
>>>>> +      - const: microchip,lan9668-otpc
>>>>
>>>> Does not look like you tested the bindings. Please run `make
>>>> dt_binding_check` (see
>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-schema.rst for instructions).
>>>>
>>>> This won't work...
>>>
>>> You are right. That was a silly mistake on my side.
>>>
>>> It should be:
>>> ---
>>> properties:
>>>   compatible:
>>>     enum:
>>>       - microchip,lan9662-otpc
>>>       - microchip,lan9668-otpc
>>> ---
>>> Because what I want to achive is to be able to use any of
>>> string(microchip,lan9662-otpc or microchip,lan9668-otpc) as compatible
>>> string.
>>>
>>> Or this is not the correct change?
>>> At least with this change dt_binding_check is happy.
>>
>> This would be correct from syntax point of view, however maybe not the
>> best choice from functional point of view. How you wrote the driver and
>> bindings, these devices are compatible, so why this is not expressed as
>> compatible devices?
> 
> OK, so then it should be something like this?
> ---
> properties:
>   compatible:
>     items:
>        - const: microchip,lan9662-otpc
>        - const: microchip,lan9668-otpc
> ---
> 

I would expect:

oneOf:
  - items:
       - const: microchip,lan9668-otpc
       - const: microchip,lan9662-otpc
  - enum:
       - microchip,lan9662-otpc

(but you need to fix indentation)

Best regards,
Krzysztof