linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: arm: socionext: add bindings for the Synquacer platform

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: <544a723b-20de-563b-6cc3-5efdeec0aef7@linaro.org>
Date:   Tue, 20 Jun 2023 08:27:17 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@...aro.org>
Cc:     devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, robh@...nel.org,
        ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org, masahisa.kojima@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: arm: socionext: add bindings for the
 Synquacer platform

On 19/06/2023 21:17, Jassi Brar wrote:
>>>>>> Can we fix them as well?
>>>>>>
>>>>> ??
>>>> What else I can say to such argument?
>>>>
>>> It was not an argument, I agreed to remove it. I just observed that
>>> the nit-pick was arbitrary.
>>> And frankly
>>>    "dt-bindings: arm: socionext: add Synquacer"   is as misleading as
>>>    "dt-bindings: arm: socionext: add bindings for the Synquacer"   is improper.
>>
>> "add Synquacer boards"
>> it is both precise and correct. No misleading.
>>
> Ok. I am going to do that. Are you going to enforce this practice for
> all submissions in future?

How many cases can you find that I did not enforce it? That I provided a
review and accepted other subject? It's nothing new...

> 
> 
>>>>
>>>> Bindings without user (so no DTSI and no driver)? Just few, not countless.
>>>>
>>> I disagree. But I don't have time to write a script to find
>>> compatibles/enums and properties in yaml/txt files that are not in any
>>> dts/dtsi file.
>>>  By that logic synquacer's spi/netsec/i2c/exiu bindings and drivers in
>>> kernel are illegit too?
>>
>> Don't know which one you talk about.
>>
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/
>   {
>      i2c/socionext,synquacer-i2c.yaml

There is a user. What do you want to prove with this one?

>      interrupt-controller/socionext,synquacer-exiu.yaml
>      net/socionext,synquacer-netsec.yaml
>      spi/socionext,synquacer-spi.yaml
>    }
> and corresponding code in drivers/
> 
> 
>>> The synquacer dts/dtsi are in u-boot upstream. SR testsuite looks up
>>
>> Sure, can you point it? U-Boot upstream is a valid project. Just like
>> many other upstream ones.
>>
> Location of dts/dtsi in u-boot upstream is
>      https://elixir.bootlin.com/u-boot/latest/source/arch/arm/dts


Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>

Best regards,
Krzysztof