linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/6] dt-bindings: nvmem: sec-qfprom: Add bindings for secure qfprom

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:   Mon, 26 Jun 2023 10:30:52 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Komal Bajaj <quic_kbajaj@...cinc.com>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/6] dt-bindings: nvmem: sec-qfprom: Add bindings for
 secure qfprom

On 26/06/2023 10:22, Komal Bajaj wrote:
>>
>>> +
>>> +allOf:
>>> +  - $ref: nvmem.yaml#
>>> +
>>> +properties:
>>> +  compatible:
>>> +    items:
>>> +      - enum:
>>> +          - qcom,qdu1000-sec-qfprom
>>> +      - const: qcom,sec-qfprom
>>> +
>>> +  reg:
>>> +    items:
>>> +      - description: The secure qfprom corrected region.
>>> +
>>> +  # Needed if any child nodes are present.
>>> +  "#address-cells":
>>> +    const: 1
>>> +  "#size-cells":
>>> +    const: 1
>> Drop both, they are not needed.
> 
> I didn't get it. Can you please explain why these are not needed as this
> node will have child nodes which will use single value for address and size.

I suspect they are already defined. Do other bindings (for cases with
children) have them? If not, why here it would be different?


Best regards,
Krzysztof