linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Add support for syspower protocol

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: <Y7P+gYRZDn9TggkK@e120937-lin>
Date:   Tue, 3 Jan 2023 10:08:01 +0000
From:   Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        sudeep.holla@....com, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Add support for
 syspower protocol

On Fri, Dec 23, 2022 at 12:22:34PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 23/12/2022 11:37, Cristian Marussi wrote:
> 
> >>>  
> >>> +  protocol@12:
> >>> +    type: object
> >>> +    properties:
> >>> +      reg:
> >>> +        const: 0x12
> >>> +
> >>
> >> Why? It did not got lost, it's already covered by pattern. If you refer
> >> to particular warning, please paste it in commit msg. Otherwise it looks
> >> incorrect.
> >>
> > 
> > Yes indeed, but as a matter of fact it seemed to me that we used to add an
> > entry and an example for all the currently published standard SCMI protocols,
> > even though already covered by the patternProp (which covers also any
> > custom-vendor protocol in the wild) and not sporting any additional
> > custom properties (see protocol@18), but maybe this is just a unneeded wrong
> > habit adding only cruft to the bindings.
> > 
> > If you think it does not add any value I can happily drop this, or
> > limiting the addition just to the example (and/or drop equally the unneeded
> > protocol@18 node too in this case).
> 
> Duplicating the node (once in properties, second in patternProperties)
> is not needed. I am also not sure what would be the point to add to the
> example - example does not have to be complete DTS for all cases, but
> illustrate the binding and allow is to test it.
> 

Thanks, I'll drop this patch.

Cristian