linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] dt-bindings: rtc: digicolor-rtc: convert to dtschema

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <82e54af1-c2d2-4cc3-b8cc-a90a4f74795e@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:03:19 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@...il.com>,
 Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Baruch Siach <baruch@...s.co.il>,
 linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] dt-bindings: rtc: digicolor-rtc: convert to dtschema

On 25/03/2024 20:46, Javier Carrasco wrote:
> On 3/25/24 17:01, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 11:46:15PM +0100, Javier Carrasco wrote:
>>> Convert existing binding to dtschema to support validation.
>>>
>>> The binding has been renamed to match its compatible. Apart from that,
>>> it is a direct conversion with no additions.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@...il.com>
>>> ---
>>>  .../devicetree/bindings/rtc/cnxt,cx92755-rtc.yaml  | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  .../devicetree/bindings/rtc/digicolor-rtc.txt      | 17 ----------
>>>  2 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>
>> This could probably just go into trivial-rtc.yaml.
>>
>> Rob
> 
> Does it make no difference if the reg property is a single address or
> address + size? trivial-rtc.yaml does no specify that ('an address' is
> mentioned), and I don't know if it is obvious for someone who wants to
> use this device.

First, you can answer to this by yourself: where do you have the "size"
documented? You will see that nowhere, because your description is
actually redundant and should be dropped. So if "nowhere", then your
binding is the same as trivial-rtc.

The presence of size is defined by the bus, not by this binding.
Therefore you do not have to tell anyone that it is address+size,
because it is obvious from the bus. And from device datasheet (bindings
are not replacement of datasheets).

Best regards,
Krzysztof