linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: mfd: Expect specific type for monitored-battery

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Y2JWhTcEvNxIwSB6@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 Nov 2022 11:37:41 +0000
From:   Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
        Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>,
        Chris Zhong <zyw@...k-chips.com>,
        Zhang Qing <zhangqing@...k-chips.com>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: mfd: Expect specific type for
 monitored-battery

On Tue, 01 Nov 2022, Rob Herring wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 5:25 AM Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 31 Oct 2022, Rob Herring wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 08:49:56AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 28 Oct 2022, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Core schema does not define type of monitored-battery, so the schemas
> > > > > are expected to reference proper type.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/ene-kb930.yaml      | 4 +++-
> > > > >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/rockchip,rk817.yaml | 1 +
> > > > >  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > Applied, thanks.
> > >
> > > NAK. Please drop or revert.
> >
> > Dropping is not a problem.
> >
> > Would you mind providing some context?
> 
> I did elsewhere in the series, but simply we don't want to define a
> type for a property multiple times. It should be defined once
> somewhere common.

ACK, thanks.

Dropped.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]