linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ASoC: dt-bindings: wm8753: Convert to dtschema

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 16 Apr 2023 09:35:12 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Saalim Quadri <danascape@...il.com>
Cc:     alsa-devel@...a-project.org, broonie@...nel.org,
        daniel.baluta@....com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, lgirdwood@...il.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...nsource.cirrus.com,
        robh+dt@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: dt-bindings: wm8753: Convert to dtschema

On 15/04/2023 22:12, Saalim Quadri wrote:
>> You choose unusual bindings to convert to DT schema. It is fine but
>> honestly, less useful, with limited impact. This is an old, 12 year old
>> binding without users. Maybe it would be even removed by now...
>> I suggest converting ones which have a real impact - have users in DTS.
>> Otherwise you will be putting quite a lot of effort for no real gains...
>> because what is the difference between this binding being TXT and DT schema?
> 
> I am converting these bindings as part of my GSoC project where I need to convert
> as many files as possible during the given tenure, I am slowly trying to read files
> in other subsystems too and will push patches for other subsystems too.
> Is it fine?

In general it is fine. I wonder if we can change the goal of GSoC? I am
surprised that such goal was chosen in the first place. Converting old,
unused bindings to DT schema is okay, but it would be much better to do
this for the bindings which are actually used.

Because I still wonder - what is the difference between this binding
being TXT and DT schema?

> 
> About the part where you suggested to convert the txt into a single YAML, shall I

The bindings were incomplete, so after adding missing pieces they could
stay probably as separate bindings.

> continue working on them? As I can see Mark merged the previous 2 patches to linux-next



Best regards,
Krzysztof