linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] regulator: dt-bindings: qcom,rpmh: dt-binding fixups

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, 6 Sep 2022 15:25:25 -0500
From:   Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@...hat.com>
To:     agross@...nel.org, andersson@...nel.org,
        konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org, lgirdwood@...il.com,
        broonie@...nel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org
Cc:     linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, dianders@...omium.org, johan@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] regulator: dt-bindings: qcom,rpmh: dt-binding fixups

On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 01:51:45PM -0500, Andrew Halaney wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> This is my poor attempt at getting devicetree validation into a better
> state for qcom,rpmh-regulator.yaml. This is a follow-up to Johan's
> request for this over here:
> 
>     https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/Yw8EE%2FESDUnIRf8P@hovoldconsulting.com/
> 
> In particular, I'm not certain patch 1 is the correct way to handle
> things, and patch 2 makes validation too wide for the *-supply nodes.
> 
> I'd love any feedback here as I'm really not experienced in any of the
> spaces (regulator, rpmh, or dt schema) so nit picking is welcomed.

v2 posted over here: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20220906201959.69920-1-ahalaney@redhat.com/