linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] dt-bindings: watchdog: davinci-wdt: convert txt to yaml

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:   Sun, 29 Oct 2023 16:20:10 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Nik Bune <n2h9z4@...il.com>, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org
Cc:     robh@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        afd@...com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, linux@...ck-us.net,
        skhan@...uxfoundation.org, wim@...ux-watchdog.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] dt-bindings: watchdog: davinci-wdt: convert txt to
 yaml

On 29/10/2023 16:09, Nik Bune wrote:
> Hello! 
> 
>> On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 at 08:31, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
>> On 28/10/2023 19:51, Nik Bune wrote:
>>>>> +  power-domains:
>>>>> +    description:
>>>>> +      A phandle and PM domain specifier as defined by bindings of
>>>>> +      the power controller specified by phandle.
>>>>> +      See Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power-domain.yaml for details.
>>>>
>>>> I think you missed Rob's comment in reply to Andrew, about constraining
>>>> and ordering the power-domains:
>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231026203037.GA327324-robh@kernel.org/
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Conor.
>>>
>>> I didn't get what should be done with respect to the comment above:
>>> Should we wait for the response from Andrew,
>>> or should we skip and remove the the power-domains definition for this binding,
>>> or add "maxItems: 1" to power-domains definition?
>>
>> None of the options above allow to send the same code without maxItems.
>> Sending new version without addressing feedback is basically ignoring
>> the feedback and next time you will have annoyed reviewers...
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Krzysztof
>>
> 
> I didn't ignore. v3 patch was sent 37 minutes before the Rob's comment to v2. 

Ah, sorry, it's good then :). Rob's comment still applies, though.

Best regards,
Krzysztof