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, 22 Nov 2022 09:03:44 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Walker Chen <walker.chen@...rfivetech.com>,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] dt-bindings: power: Add StarFive JH7110 power
 domain definitions

On 22/11/2022 08:46, Walker Chen wrote:
> On 2022/11/21 18:12, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 18/11/2022 14:32, Walker Chen wrote:
>>> Add power domain definitions for the StarFive JH7110 SoC.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Walker Chen <walker.chen@...rfivetech.com>
>>> ---
>>>  include/dt-bindings/power/jh7110-power.h | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
>>>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
>>>  create mode 100644 include/dt-bindings/power/jh7110-power.h
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/power/jh7110-power.h b/include/dt-bindings/power/jh7110-power.h
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 000000000000..24160c46fbaf
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/power/jh7110-power.h
>>
>> Filename matching compatible or bindings file.
> 
> So the file name should be changed to "starfive,jh7110-power.h" and the compatible in the driver 
> should also be changed to "starfive,jh7110-power". Is it right ?

I said filename should be changed. I don't remember what was your
compatible, but if I did not comment there, in means it looked fine.

> 
>>
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0) */
>>
>> Dual license for bindings.
> 
> Ok, the license will be changed to GPL-2.0 or MIT in the patch v2. 

Any reasons why not using the licenses recommended by checkpatch?


Best regards,
Krzysztof

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ