linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] dt-bindings: pinctrl: qcom: Add QDU1000 and QRU1000 pinctrl

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: <1d13e913-d425-8cb0-d954-d1d7bc340f38@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 23 Nov 2022 09:06:35 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Melody Olvera <quic_molvera@...cinc.com>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>
Cc:     linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] dt-bindings: pinctrl: qcom: Add QDU1000 and
 QRU1000 pinctrl

On 22/11/2022 16:23, Melody Olvera wrote:
> 
> 
> On 11/22/2022 1:48 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 21/11/2022 21:38, Melody Olvera wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/20/2022 4:58 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 18/11/2022 19:20, Melody Olvera wrote:
>>>>> Add device tree bindings for QDU1000 and QRU1000 TLMM devices.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Melody Olvera <quic_molvera@...cinc.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  .../bindings/pinctrl/qcom,qdu1000-tlmm.yaml   | 134 ++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>  1 file changed, 134 insertions(+)
>>>>>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/qcom,qdu1000-tlmm.yaml
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/qcom,qdu1000-tlmm.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/qcom,qdu1000-tlmm.yaml
>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>> index 000000000000..cb0c496d8666
>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/qcom,qdu1000-tlmm.yaml
>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,134 @@
>>>>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
>>>>> +%YAML 1.2
>>>>> +---
>>>>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/pinctrl/qcom,qdu1000-tlmm.yaml#
>>>>> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
>>>>> +
>>>>> +title: Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. QDU1000/QRU1000 TLMM block
>>>>> +
>>>>> +maintainers:
>>>>> +  - Melody Olvera <quic_molvera@...cinc.com>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +description: |
>>>>> +  This Top Level Mode Multiplexer block (TLMM) is found in the QDU1000 and
>>>>> +  QRU1000 platforms.
>>>> It's better to keep consistent style which allows to do easy
>>>> search/replace, than to have new files using their own sentences. So
>>>> keep it the same as was unified in few recent commits.
>>> Ok... Just making sure that's what you want. Last PS you gave comments to change
>>> the wording of this description to remove "This binding describes..." as we've done
>>> in all the other qcom pinctrl/tlmm bindings. I can change the wording back to the
>>> original, just want to be clear here.
>> I propose to have the same wording as other Qualcomm TLMM bindings,
>> however you changed it to something not the same. Therefore I wonder -
>> why having here different wording than all other bindings?
>>
>> By going back to original - what do you mean? If it matches all others,
>> then yes, but I doubt it.
>>
>> Just to be sure - are you working on proper (recent) trees or something old?
> 
> Original matched how it was done on other Qualcomm TLMM bindings. Feedback
> was to drop "This binding describes..." from [1], but all the Qualcomm TLMM
> bindings start with "This binding describes...". I'm looking at qcom tree for-next
> branch; should be recent, no?

No. It's not recent for anything else than managed by Bjorn. You need to
base the patches on maintainer's trees, which is usually the easiest to
achieve via linux-next (especially that these changes were in my tree
for some time before I sent them to Linus).

Your all other patches might have similar issues - wrong base or not
good example/starting point.

Best regards,
Krzysztof