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]

Date:   Thu, 19 Oct 2023 15:30:03 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Subhajit Ghosh <subhajit.ghosh@...aklogic.com>,
        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 19/10/2023 13:16, Subhajit Ghosh wrote:
> 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.

Answer in the commit. The commits should answer to the question: why are
you doing it?

>>>   
>>> +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()

Not explained in commit msg.

> 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.

Not explained in commit msg.

Best regards,
Krzysztof