linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: mfd: aspeed: Drop 'oneOf' for pinctrl node

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: <CAL_JsqJmciSKp4H2KXcqv78Vga5gDi0JU_PY4Dth7LJrq6swMA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 07:39:48 -0500
From: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To: Andrew Jeffery <andrew@...econstruct.com.au>
Cc: Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, 
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: mfd: aspeed: Drop 'oneOf' for pinctrl node

On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 7:40 PM Andrew Jeffery
<andrew@...econstruct.com.au> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2024-04-30 at 12:25 -0500, Rob Herring (Arm) wrote:
> > The use of 'oneOf' to include 1 of 3 possible child node schemas results
> > in error messages containing the actual error message(s) for the correct
> > SoC buried in the tons of error messages from the 2 schemas that don't
> > apply. It also causes the pinctrl schema to be applied twice as it will
> > be applied when the compatible matches.
> >
> > All that's really needed in the parent schema is to ensure one of the
> > possible compatible strings is present in the pinctrl node so that its
> > schema will be applied separately.
>
> Thanks, I think it improves the readability of intent in the binding as
> well.
>
> To understand the impact better I grabbed the patch and diffed the
> output of `make CHECK_DTBS=y aspeed/aspeed-ast2600-evb.dtb` before and
> after applying it, but there was no significant difference in output.
> Should that not demonstrate the errors being cleaned up? If not, what
> should?

Try it on one of the new boards posted in the last 1-2 days. It showed
up on my testing dtbs_check on patches. I didn't send a report because
there was so much noise in it.

Rob