linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] arm64: dts: mediatek: mt8365: drop incorrect power-domain-cells

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: <f7760293-ded2-4d89-928c-a73359a045d2@collabora.com>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 12:06:52 +0200
From: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
 Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
 <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
 MandyJH Liu <mandyjh.liu@...iatek.com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] arm64: dts: mediatek: mt8365: drop incorrect
 power-domain-cells

Il 20/05/24 12:03, Krzysztof Kozlowski ha scritto:
> On 20/05/2024 11:58, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
>> Il 18/05/24 23:11, Krzysztof Kozlowski ha scritto:
>>> The top SCPSYS node is not a power domain provider.  It's child
>>> "power-controller" is instead.  Fix dtbs_check warnings like:
>>>
>>>     mt8365-evk.dtb: syscon@...06000: '#power-domain-cells' does not match any of the regexes: 'pinctrl-[0-9]+'
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
>>
>> Well if you're fixing that by migrating to scpsys compatible, you might as well
>> resolve all of the warnings in one commit, removing that power-domain-cells
>> property in patch [2/4], otherwise this one is technically a fix for that.
>>
>> Please squash [2/4] and [3/4], like that it just makes more sense.
>>
> 
> That's independent thing. Previous compatible - syscfg - also did not
> allow power domains. The difference is that bindings did not print a
> warning without my change. We can reverse the patches if this is more
> suitable.
> 

You're still introducing a warning with patch 2.

As for swapping the order, that could also be a solution, but I still don't see
that as an independent thing - in any case, swapping them is something I can do
while applying, eventually.