linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: cpufreq: add bindings for virtual cpufreq

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:   Wed, 9 Aug 2023 08:28:22 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>
Cc:     David Dai <davidai@...gle.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...gle.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Pavan Kondeti <quic_pkondeti@...cinc.com>,
        Gupta Pankaj <pankaj.gupta@....com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, kernel-team@...roid.com,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: cpufreq: add bindings for virtual
 cpufreq

On 09/08/2023 01:31, Saravana Kannan wrote:
>>
>>> +        reg = <0x1040000 0x10>;
>>> +        compatible = "virtual,cpufreq";
>>
>> compatible is always the first property.
>>
>> Also, you did not test it...
> 
> Why do you say this? This patch series was obviously tested very well
> with all the data we collected.

Why do I say? Because of warning and huge fat Python exception? Test
it... you will see.

Best regards,
Krzysztof