linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] regulator: dt-bindings: qcom,rpmh: Indicate regulator-allow-set-load dependencies

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]

Message-ID: <20220906215020.igxpywsdlmzpt7fp@halaneylaptop>
Date:   Tue, 6 Sep 2022 16:50:20 -0500
From:   Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@...hat.com>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc:     krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, andersson@...nel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, agross@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dianders@...omium.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, johan@...nel.org,
        lgirdwood@...il.com, konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, broonie@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] regulator: dt-bindings: qcom,rpmh: Indicate
 regulator-allow-set-load dependencies

On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 04:41:00PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Sep 2022 15:19:59 -0500, Andrew Halaney wrote:
> > For RPMH regulators it doesn't make sense to indicate
> > regulator-allow-set-load without saying what modes you can switch to,
> > so be sure to indicate a dependency on regulator-allowed-modes.
> > 
> > With this in place devicetree validation can catch issues like this:
> > 
> >     /mnt/extrassd/git/linux-next/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8350-hdk.dtb: pm8350-rpmh-regulators: ldo5: 'regulator-allowed-modes' is a dependency of 'regulator-allow-set-load'
> >             From schema: /mnt/extrassd/git/linux-next/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/qcom,rpmh-regulator.yaml
> > 
> > Suggested-by: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@...hat.com>
> > ---
> > 
> > v1: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20220902185148.635292-1-ahalaney@redhat.com/
> > Changes since v1:
> >   - Dropped first two patches in the series as they were user error
> >     (thanks Krzysztof for highlighting this!)
> >   - No change in the remaining patch
> > 
> > Krzysztof also asked if this patch in particular should apply to other
> > regulators, which I think it should for those regulator's who implement
> > set_mode(). Unfortunately I don't know of a good way to get that
> > information in order to apply it at a broader scope for devicetree
> > regulator validation. At least with this in place RPMH users can get
> > better coverage... if someone has suggestions for how to broaden the
> > scope I'm all ears!
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Andrew
> > 
> >  .../devicetree/bindings/regulator/qcom,rpmh-regulator.yaml    | 4 ++++
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> > 
> 
> Running 'make dtbs_check' with the schema in this patch gives the
> following warnings. Consider if they are expected or the schema is
> incorrect. These may not be new warnings.
> 
> Note that it is not yet a requirement to have 0 warnings for dtbs_check.
> This will change in the future.
> 
> Full log is available here: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/
> 
> 

<snip>

> 
> pmm8540-g-regulators: ldo8: 'regulator-allowed-modes' is a dependency of 'regulator-allow-set-load'
> 	arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sa8295p-adp.dtb
> 
> pmm8540-g-regulators: qcom,pmic-id:0: 'g' is not one of ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'h', 'k']
> 	arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sa8295p-adp.dtb
> 
> pmm8540-g-regulators: Unevaluated properties are not allowed ('qcom,pmic-id' was unexpected)
> 	arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sa8295p-adp.dtb
> 

Please note in case I didn't make it obvious in the commit message, the
regulator-allowed-modes dependency warning is the intent of this commit,
and those warnings go away once this patch series is applied:

    https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220829164952.2672848-1-dianders@chromium.org/

The last two are old warnings (that I have yet to look into).

Thanks,
Andrew