linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] dt-bindings: pinctrl: brcm: Ensure all child node properties are documented

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 23 Oct 2023 10:23:35 +0200
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc:     Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        Fernández Rojas <noltari@...il.com>,
        Jonas Gorski <jonas.gorski@...il.com>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] dt-bindings: pinctrl: brcm: Ensure all child node
 properties are documented

On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 8:59 PM Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> wrote:

> The Broadcom pinctrl bindings are incomplete for child nodes as they are
> missing 'unevaluatedProperties: false' to prevent unknown properties.
> Fixing this reveals many warnings including having grandchild nodes in some
> cases. Many cases in the examples use 'group' property which is
> undocumented and not used by the driver. As the schemas define 'pins', I
> assume that is the correct name except for the one case, 6358, using
> 'groups' which is documented.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>

Patch applied!

> Well, it's been a year[1] and no one else has stepped up to fix these
> bindings. I'm still not certain where "pins" vs. "groups" is correct or
> whether it even matters (to the driver). As there are no .dts files to
> go by, I went with the schema being correct unless the example was the
> complete opposite (6358).
>
> This is about the last thing blocking enabling checks that child node
> schemas have unevaluatedProperties or additionalProperties. If no one
> wants to fix this correctly, then apply this or we should remove the
> bindings.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220816183911.2517173-1-robh@kernel.org/

AFAICT you did the right thing, thanks for your perseverance on
this Rob!

Yours,
Linus Walleij