linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: mediatek: mt8183-kukui-jacuzzi: fix dsi unnecessary cells properties

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:   Fri, 1 Dec 2023 10:08:40 +0100
From:   AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
        Eugen Hristev <eugen.hristev@...labora.com>
Cc:     krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, matthias.bgg@...il.com,
        kernel@...labora.com, hsinyi@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: mediatek: mt8183-kukui-jacuzzi: fix dsi
 unnecessary cells properties

Il 30/11/23 10:01, Krzysztof Kozlowski ha scritto:
> On 29/11/2023 14:27, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 10:10:53 +0300, Eugen Hristev wrote:
>>> dtbs_check throws a warning at the dsi node:
>>> Warning (avoid_unnecessary_addr_size): /soc/dsi@...14000: unnecessary #address-cells/#size-cells without "ranges" or child "reg" property
>>>
>>> Other DTS have a panel child node with a reg, so the parent dtsi
>>> must have the address-cells and size-cells, however this specific DT
>>> has the panel removed, but not the cells, hence the warning above.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> Applied, thanks!
>>
>> [1/1] arm64: dts: mediatek: mt8183-kukui-jacuzzi: fix dsi unnecessary cells properties
>>        commit: 4b66a34afe29d991155081b2f1e10482bd00cbaa
>>
> 
>> Reviewed-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>
>>
> 
> You know, your SoB implies review. Unless you want to say you
> usually apply code without reviewing it...
> 

Yeah, of course it does imply review ... but if there's no actual problem with me
also sending a R-b tag, it's more practical for me, because:
  1. I have mail filters to show me what I reviewed, and
  2. Matthias also can see what I reviewed....

...but I get it that in the specific case of *this* patch, I've sent a R-b just
before applying, so I agree in that this was actually really really useless to do.

so.. whoops :-)

Thanks, btw!
Angelo