linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] dt-bindings: thermal: tsens: Add ipq9574 compatible

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: <cfba78d7-e563-4544-00f3-0991b91eb1f3@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 17 May 2023 09:00:49 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Varadarajan Narayanan <quic_varada@...cinc.com>
Cc:     agross@...nel.org, andersson@...nel.org, konrad.dybcio@...aro.org,
        amitk@...nel.org, thara.gopinath@...il.com, rafael@...nel.org,
        daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, rui.zhang@...el.com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Praveenkumar I <quic_ipkumar@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] dt-bindings: thermal: tsens: Add ipq9574
 compatible

On 17/05/2023 07:57, Varadarajan Narayanan wrote:
> Part-1 is adding the 'const' entries at the beginning i.e.
> 
> 	+      - const: qcom,tsens-v0_1
> 	+      - const: qcom,tsens-v1
> 	+      - const: qcom,tsens-v2
> 	+      - const: qcom,ipq8074-tsens
> 
> Part-2 is changing from one valid syntax to another i.e.
> 
> 	+        items:
> 	+          - enum:
> 	+              - qcom,ipq9574-tsens
> 	+          - const: qcom,ipq8074-tsens
> 
> Without both of the above changes, either or both of dtbs_check
> & dt_binding_check fails. So, it is not possible to just add the
> "valid hunk" (part-2) alone.

Of course it is. All schema files work like that...
> 
> If having both part-1 and part-2 in the same patch is not
> acceptable, shall I split them into two patches? Please let me know.

No, hunk one is not justified.

Best regards,
Krzysztof