linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8550: remove address/size-cells from mdss

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: <c1d4f636-d068-48e0-9013-b5a586fff99f@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2023 11:13:47 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Tengfei Fan <quic_tengfan@...cinc.com>, agross@...nel.org,
 andersson@...nel.org, konrad.dybcio@...aro.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
 krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, conor+dt@...nel.org
Cc: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...cinc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8550: remove
 address/size-cells from mdss_dsi1

On 18/12/2023 10:59, Tengfei Fan wrote:
> 
> 
> 在 12/11/2023 6:25 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski 写道:
>> On 07/12/2023 10:27, Tengfei Fan wrote:
>>> Address/size-cells will cause dtbs check warning, because mdss_dsi1 node
>>> have not ranges and child also have not reg, so remove address/size-cells.
>>
>> Paste the excerpt of warning.
> Sure, I will paste the excerpt of warning.
>>
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tengfei Fan <quic_tengfan@...cinc.com>
>>> ---
>>
>> I am not sure if this is correct. The address/size cells are there for
>> panels. We have multiple of such warnings, so I would like to have here
>> consensus for all of them.
> Currently these address/size cells lead to dtc W=1 warning, so these 

I know.

> should be dropped. 

Why? They are correct.

> These can be re-added if needed at a later date.

Added where? These are rather properties of SoC.

This does not solve any of my concerns.

Best regards,
Krzysztof