linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] dt-bindings: net: ipq4019-mdio: Document ipq5332 platform

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: <6acecb29-2a6c-40af-a5a3-bec3e7286df7@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2023 13:14:38 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Jie Luo <quic_luoj@...cinc.com>, agross@...nel.org, andersson@...nel.org,
 konrad.dybcio@...aro.org, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
 kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
 krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, conor+dt@...nel.org, andrew@...n.ch,
 hkallweit1@...il.com, linux@...linux.org.uk, robert.marko@...tura.hr
Cc: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 quic_srichara@...cinc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] dt-bindings: net: ipq4019-mdio: Document ipq5332
 platform

On 15/12/2023 13:03, Jie Luo wrote:
>>> If i do not declare the property "reset-assert-us" and
>>> "reset-deassert-us", the warning will be reported by "make
>>> dt_binding_check" since i
>>> add a example in this file.
>>
>> This argument does not make sense, sorry. Obviously if property is not
>> allowed, it should be removed.
>>
>> Provide rationale, in terms of hardware, why this property must be added
>> and why it cannot be deduced from the compatible.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Krzysztof
>>
> 
> So i can remove "reset-assert-us" and "reset-deassert-us" from the added
> example to avoid the dt check warning? even these two properties are
> needed to be defined in the device tree to make this driver working
> correctly.

Sorry, that does not answer my question at all. First, "Driver" is not
hardware. My second question was simply ignored. In the v2 thread you as
well respond with some short, unrelated sentences not answering to the
real questions. It's a waste of my time. Please reach internally in
Qualcomm for guidance how to upstream patches and how to write bindings.

Best regards,
Krzysztof