linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] dt-bindings: phy: qcom,ipq8074-qmp-pcie: add ipq9574 gen3x2 PHY

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: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 21:36:19 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: mr.nuke.me@...il.com, Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
 Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>, Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
 Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] dt-bindings: phy: qcom,ipq8074-qmp-pcie: add
 ipq9574 gen3x2 PHY

On 10/04/2024 18:29, mr.nuke.me@...il.com wrote:
> 
> 
> On 4/10/24 02:02, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 10/04/2024 08:59, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 09/04/2024 22:19, mr.nuke.me@...il.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>    
>>>>>>      clock-names:
>>>>>>        items:
>>>>>>          - const: aux
>>>>>>          - const: cfg_ahb
>>>>>>          - const: pipe
>>>>>> +      - const: anoc
>>>>>> +      - const: snoc
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, you did not test it. Neither this, nor DTS. I stop review, please
>>>>> test first.
>>>>
>>>> I ran both `checkpatch.pl` and `make dt_binding_check`. What in this
>>>> patch makes you say I "did not test it", and what test or tests did I miss?
>>>>
>>>
>>> ... and no, you did not. If you tested, you would easily see error:
>>> 	clock-names: ['aux', 'cfg_ahb', 'pipe'] is too short
>>>
>>> When you receive comment from reviewer, please investigate thoroughly
>>> what could get wrong. Don't answer just to get rid of reviewer. It's
>>> fine to make mistakes, but if reviewer points to issue and you
>>> immediately respond "no issue", that's waste of my time.
>>
>> To clarify: "no issue" response is waste of my time. If you responded
>> "oh, I see the error, but I don't know how to fix it", it would be ok, I
>> can clarify and help in this.
> 
> I apologize if I gave you this impression. I tried to follow the testing 
> process, it did not turn out as expected. Obviously, I missed something. 
> I tried to ask what I missed, and in order for that question to make 
> sense, I need to describe what I tried.
> 
> It turns out what I missed was "make check_dtbs". I only found that out 
> after an automated email from Rob describing some troubleshooting steps.

No, the dt_binding_check fails. You don't need to go to dtbs_check even,
because the binding already has a failure.

> 
> If I may have a few sentences to rant, I see the dt-schema as a hurdle 
> to making an otherwise useful change. I am told I can ask for help when 
> I get stuck, yet I manage to insult the maintainer by aking for help. I 
> find this very intimidating.

I don't feel insulted but I feel my time is wasted if I tell you to test
your binding and you immediately within few minutes respond "I tested",
but then:
1. Bot confirms it was not tested,
2. I apply your patch and test it and see the failure.

Best regards,
Krzysztof