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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <17fa2b28-2564-488e-86f6-979a69242999@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2023 10:30:59 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: "Aiqun Yu (Maria)" <quic_aiquny@...cinc.com>,
 Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
Cc: Tengfei Fan <quic_tengfan@...cinc.com>, andersson@...nel.org,
 konrad.dybcio@...aro.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
 krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
 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

On 22/12/2023 10:10, Aiqun Yu (Maria) wrote:
>>>>>> There is just one.
>>>>> Currently I mentioned bindings files was searched the compatible
>>>>> "qcom,mdss-dsi-ctrl", and find binding docs like "qcom,sm8550-mdss.yaml"
>>>>> "qcom,sm8450-mdss.yaml" etc.
>>>>> There is duplicate information on "qcom,sm8550-mdss.yaml" etc, while
>>>>> "qcom,mdss-common.yaml" is not common enough for my understanding.
>>>>
>>>> If you had compared the qcom,SOC-mdss.yaml, you would have seen that
>>>> they provide tight binding between compatible strings used for all the
>>>> subblocks. The `mdss-common.yaml` describes MDSS common properties. It
>>>> describes everything except the platform specifics. It can not be made
>>>> more common. And there is no duplication.
>>>>
>>>> If you think you can improve the bindings, please send the patches.
>>> I am thinking of a unified qcom,mdss.yaml instead of "qcom,*each
>>> SOC*-mdss.yaml". I will try to have a patch.
>>
>> I asked first of you to read previous discussions. If you still insist
>> on sending patch for this, it means you did not read them.
> Do you have the previous discussion title/link that you are refereed 
> here pls?

No, I don't have it. You can find it the same as me and it is not the
job of reviewer to find them for you.

Best regards,
Krzysztof