linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: iio: light: Squash APDS9300 and APDS9960 schemas

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: <6b721019-c98e-d926-04a9-e71f9ea20762@tweaklogic.com>
Date:   Thu, 19 Oct 2023 21:46:18 +1030
From:   Subhajit Ghosh <subhajit.ghosh@...aklogic.com>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: iio: light: Squash APDS9300 and APDS9960
 schemas

On 19/10/23 19:50, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 19/10/2023 10:04, Subhajit Ghosh wrote:
>> Squashing Avago (Broadcom) APDS9300 and APDS9960 schemas into one
>> file and removing the other.
> 
> Please answer: why?
Apologies for not providing detailed explanation.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/4e785d2e-d310-4592-a75a-13549938dcef@linaro.org/
As per your comments on the patch series in the above link and as per my understanding,
I have to do two operations:
1. Squash existing apds9300 schema and apds9960 schema as they look similar.
2. Add apds9306 (work in progress) support after that (which belongs to my original patch series).
This patch is the first operation.
>>   
>> +allOf:
>> +  - $ref: ../common.yaml#
>> +  - if:
>> +      properties:
>> +        compatible:
>> +          contains:
>> +            enum:
>> +              - avago,apds9960
>> +    then:
>> +      required:
>> +        - interrupts
> 
> Why? This wasn't in original binding.
I am not sure about this. I went through the driver code and found out that probe()
of apds9300 handles both situations whether interrupt bindings are provided or not, whereas,
apds9960 requires an interrupt binding for probe() to be successful. I thought it would
be appropriate to add that in the schema.
> 
> Separate patch please.
> 
> You are doing way too many unexpected and not explained changes.
Sure. Thank you for reviewing.

Regards,
Subhajit Ghosh.