linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: opp: switch inner and outer min/maxItems rules for opp-hz

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]

Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 17:02:11 -0600
From: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To: David Heidelberg <david@...t.cz>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>, Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>, 
	Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, 
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, 
	Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>, Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>, 
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, 
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: opp: switch inner and outer min/maxItems
 rules for opp-hz

On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 2:34 PM David Heidelberg <david@...t.cz> wrote:
>
> On 30/01/2024 18:06, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 04:58:15PM -0700, Rob Herring wrote:
> >> On Sat, Dec 30, 2023 at 03:17:21PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>> On 29/12/2023 20:10, David Heidelberg wrote:
> >>>> Fixes issue as:
> >>>> ```
> >>> Drop, it's not RST, but commit msg.
> >>>
> >>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-enchilada.dtb: opp-table: opp-200000000:opp-hz:0: [200000000, 0, 0, 150000000, 0, 0, 0, 0, 300000000] is too long
> >>>> ```
> >>>>
> >>>> Fixes: 3cb16ad69bef ("dt-bindings: opp: accept array of frequencies")
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: David Heidelberg <david@...t.cz>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>   Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/opp-v2-base.yaml | 5 ++---
> >>>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/opp-v2-base.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/opp-v2-base.yaml
> >>>> index e2f8f7af3cf4..86d3aa0eb435 100644
> >>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/opp-v2-base.yaml
> >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/opp-v2-base.yaml
> >>>> @@ -55,10 +55,9 @@ patternProperties:
> >>>>             to relate the values to their clocks or the order in which the clocks
> >>>>             need to be configured and that is left for the implementation
> >>>>             specific binding.
> >>>> -        minItems: 1
> >>>> -        maxItems: 32
> >>>>           items:
> >>>> -          maxItems: 1
> >>>> +          minItems: 1
> >>>> +          maxItems: 32
> >>> This does not look like correct fix. The original code looked fine -
> >>> only one item is allowed in each sub-element (array).
> >> This one is special being 64-bit values so we have an exception in
> >> property-units.yaml. The constraints here don't get used in decoding the
> >> dtb and the default way of 1 outer element is used.
> >>
> >> It doesn't look like opp-hz needs to be a matrix as it is really just an
> >> array. Perhaps it should just be changed to an array type.
> >> Alternatively, adding 'items: { maxItems: 1 }' to the definition in
> >> property-units.yaml fixes the issue as well.
> >>
> >> Though we can fix this, I'm looking into if we have other cases where we
> >> need this to work as-is. There's probably some room for improvement in
> >> how matrix dimensions are handled.
> > I've made some improvements on matrix dimensions, but this one is still
> > an issue. Can you respin this dropping 'items: {maxItems: 1}'. I'm going
> > to change the definition in property-units.yaml to uint64-array.
>
> Keeping the rest of my changes still generates warnings (today dt-schema
> git) even with `maxItems` dropped.
>
> The only working scenario is when I do only the dropping of `items:
> {maxItems: 1}` from the original code.
>
> Is it the standalone change of just dropping this what did you desired?
> If yes, I have the patch prepared.

Yes. I still need to look at changing the type, but that shouldn't
hold up the kernel change.

Rob