linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] arm64: dts: qcom: Add configuration for PMI8950 peripheral

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]

Date:   Wed, 14 Dec 2022 21:39:02 +0100
From:   Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc:     Luca Weiss <luca@...tu.xyz>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        ~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht, phone-devel@...r.kernel.org,
        AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <kholk11@...il.com>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] arm64: dts: qcom: Add configuration for PMI8950
 peripheral

On 2022-12-11 21:11:51, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 10/12/2022 17:31, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> > [..]
> > If we were able to have rules for labels, would I then be allowed to
> > "correct" this?
> 
> If we had rules, yes. But we do not have. That's like - I will rename
> all variables because of some non-existing rules... There is no rule, no
> coding style (except what I wrote)...
> 
> >  The inconsistency between DTs is /super/ annoying (and
> > it looks wrong to have a singular _gpio named thing contain /multiple
> > gpios/), 
> 
> What do you mean - looks wrong? It's just a label which does not matter,
> so how it can be wrong?
> 
> > but just because we can't express this in dt-bindings (or so I
> > think) we shouldn't change it?
> 
> No, it just does not matter, so there is no benefit to change it, in my
> opinion, if label is readable and follows generic convention
> (underscores). Of course someone might treat its readability different
> and maybe for someone the missing "s" at the end is important.

That must be me.

> I am just
> saying that, unlike the node names, the label has little impact/effect.
> 
> However just be clear - this change also does not harm, so I am
> perfectly fine with it.

Okay, I'd prefer to have it :)

- Marijn