linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 06/17] dt-bindings: fsi: Document the FSI controller common properties

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]

Message-ID: <3bcc9143-6896-496b-aa30-7ac0fc2d8e51@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 09:01:50 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Eddie James <eajames@...ux.ibm.com>, linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org
Cc: devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-fsi@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, lakshmiy@...ibm.com, robh@...nel.org,
 krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org, joel@....id.au,
 andrew@...econstruct.com.au, andi.shyti@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 06/17] dt-bindings: fsi: Document the FSI controller
 common properties

On 29/04/2024 23:01, Eddie James wrote:
> +
> +patternProperties:
> +  "cfam@[0-9a-f],[0-9a-f]":
> +    type: object
> +    properties:
> +      chip-id:
> +        $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32
> +        description:
> +          Processor index

fsi.txt tells a bit more about it, so extend the description.


> +
> +      reg:
> +        maxItems: 1
> +
> +      "#address-cells":
> +        const: 1
> +
> +      "#size-cells":
> +        const: 1
> +
> +    required:
> +      - reg
> +
> +    additionalProperties: true
> +
> +additionalProperties: true
> +
> +examples:
> +  - |
> +    fsi {
> +        #address-cells = <2>;
> +        #size-cells = <0>;
> +
> +        cfam@0,0 {
> +            reg = <0 0>;
> +            #address-cells = <1>;
> +            #size-cells = <1>;
> +            chip-id = <0>;
> +        };
> +    };

Drop the example, it's not being validated/used.

Best regards,
Krzysztof