linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Restrict protocol child node properties

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:   Wed, 25 Jan 2023 11:30:24 -0600
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Cc:     Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Restrict protocol child
 node properties

On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 8:11 AM Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 01:43:48PM +0000, Cristian Marussi wrote:
> > so now that the catch-all protocol@ patternProperty is gone in favour
> > of the 'protocol-node' definition and $refs, does that mean that any
> > current and future SCMI officially published protocol <N> has to be
> > added to the above explicit protocol list, even though it does not
> > have any special additional required property beside reg ?
> > (like protocol@18 above...)
> >
>
> If there are no consumers, should we just not add and deal with it
> entirely within the kernel. I know we rely today on presence of node
> before we initialise, but hey we have exception for system power protocol
> for other reasons, why not add this one too.
>
> In short we shouldn't have to add a node if there are no consumers. It
> was one of the topic of discussion initially when SCMI binding was added
> and they exist only for the consumers otherwise we don't need it as
> everything is discoverable from the interface.

As you might guess, I agree.

We need to keep 0x18 I suppose, right? I assume it is already in use.
Are there any others that didn't get documented? We'd need to keep
them because old kernels would still need them.

Rob