linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] dt-bindings: timer: atmel,at91sam9260-pit: convert to yaml

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: <897b1a45-dadc-eaa8-eb7d-c604ff723c2c@microchip.com>
Date:   Fri, 9 Jun 2023 12:21:41 +0000
From:   <Claudiu.Beznea@...rochip.com>
To:     <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        <Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com>, <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>, <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>, <linux@...ck-us.net>
CC:     <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] dt-bindings: timer: atmel,at91sam9260-pit: convert
 to yaml

On 09.06.2023 15:18, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> 
> On 09/06/2023 14:09, Claudiu.Beznea@...rochip.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> interrupts? They are still required, so why no description here?
>>>>
>>>> It was here in the previous versions but Conor suggested to remove it as it
>>>> was nothing specific about this description. For the if-then branch I kept
>>>> it to specify that the interrupt is share with other devices. In this
>>>> branch the interrupt is only for the timer itself. With this, would you
>>>> still prefer to add it back?
>>>
>>> I just don't understand why interrupts are in one arm of the if: and not
>>> in the other.
>>>
>>
>> As previously mentioned, Conor suggested to have it like this.
>>
> 
> ok

Would you still prefer to add back interrupt description on both branches
of if?

> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>