linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: mfd: Add ROHM BD71879

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: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 14:04:11 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info>
Cc: lee@...nel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
 conor+dt@...nel.org, mazziesaccount@...il.com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: mfd: Add ROHM BD71879

On 04/04/2024 12:30, Andreas Kemnade wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 08:59:54 +0200
> Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 02/04/2024 21:35, Andreas Kemnade wrote:
>>> As this chip was seen in several devices in the wild, add it.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info>
>>> Suggested-by: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
>>> ---
>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/rohm,bd71828-pmic.yaml | 4 +++-
>>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/rohm,bd71828-pmic.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/rohm,bd71828-pmic.yaml
>>> index 0b62f854bf6b..e4df09e8961c 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/rohm,bd71828-pmic.yaml
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/rohm,bd71828-pmic.yaml
>>> @@ -17,7 +17,9 @@ description: |
>>>  
>>>  properties:
>>>    compatible:
>>> -    const: rohm,bd71828
>>> +    enum:
>>> +      - rohm,bd71828
>>> +      - rohm,bd71879  
>>
>> In your second commit you claim they are compatible, so why they are not
>> marked as such?
>>
> so you mean allowing
> 
> compatible = "rohm,bd71828"
> and
> compatible = "rohm,bd71879", "rohm,bd71828"

Yes. If there are reasons against, please briefly mention them in commit
msg.

Best regards,
Krzysztof