linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] 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]

Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2023 15:42:14 +0800
From: Tengfei Fan <quic_tengfan@...cinc.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.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 v3 1/1] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8550: remove
 address/size-cells from mdss_dsi1



在 12/19/2023 3:17 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski 写道:
> On 19/12/2023 01:31, Tengfei Fan wrote:
>> The address/size-cells in mdss_dsi1 node have not ranges and child also
>> have not reg, then this leads to dtc W=1 warnings:
> 
> I cannot parse it. Address/size cells never have ranges or children.
> They cannot have. These are uint32 properties.
> 
>>
>>    sm8550.dtsi:2937.27-2992.6: Warning (avoid_unnecessary_addr_size): /soc@...isplay-subsystem@...0000/dsi@...6000:
>>      unnecessary #address-cells/#size-cells without "ranges" or child "reg" property
>>
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Tengfei Fan <quic_tengfan@...cinc.com>
>> ---
> 
> I disagreed with the patch before. You resubmit it without really
> addressing my concerns.
> 
> I am not sure if this is correct fix and I want to fix all of such
> errors (there are multiple of them) in the same way. Feel free to
> propose common solution based on arguments.
> 
> I don't really want to NAKit but since you are resending without
> finishing the discussion, which is quite impolite, then let's be like that:
> 
> NAK
Hi Krzysztof,
Have sent this patch series before finding your latest comments in the 
previous patch series.
I sincerely apologize to you! This is my fault, please ignore this patch 
series before solve your concerns.
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 

-- 
Thx and BRs,
Tengfei Fan