linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: fpga: Convert bridge binding to yaml

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, 9 Jan 2024 09:00:14 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@...ux.intel.com>, Michal Simek <michal.simek@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, monstr@...str.eu, michal.simek@...inx.com,
 git@...inx.com, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
 Moritz Fischer <mdf@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
 Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>, Wu Hao <hao.wu@...el.com>,
 Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@...el.com>,
 "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
 <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, kishore Manne <nava.kishore.manne@....com>,
 "open list:FPGA MANAGER FRAMEWORK" <linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: fpga: Convert bridge binding to yaml

On 09/01/2024 04:53, Xu Yilun wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 10:16:17AM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/8/24 10:09, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 05/01/2024 17:04, Michal Simek wrote:
>>>> Convert the generic fpga bridge DT binding to json-schema.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@....com>
>>>
>>>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/fpga/fpga-bridge.yaml#
>>>> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
>>>> +
>>>> +title: FPGA Bridge
>>>> +
>>>> +maintainers:
>>>> +  - Michal Simek <michal.simek@....com>
>>>> +
>>>> +properties:
>>>> +  $nodename:
>>>> +    pattern: "^fpga-bridge(@.*)?$"
>>>
>>> Not sure, but maybe we need to allow fpga-bridge-1? Could we have more
>>> than one bridge on given system?
>>
>> Yilun: Any comment on this?
> 
> We can have more bridges, but IIUC people use fpga-bridge@0, fpga-bridge@0
> to identify them. So the expression is OK to me.

So you claim unit address thus reg with some sort of bus address is a
requirement? Then "?" is not correct in that pattern.

Best regards,
Krzysztof