linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: non-dt-devices: document ltr,ltrf216a used via ACPI PRP0001

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <b288d373-a1bc-46b9-9a08-4d949d1bd2bc@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:57:55 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>,
 Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
 Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@...labora.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: non-dt-devices: document ltr,ltrf216a used
 via ACPI PRP0001

On 09/07/2024 22:48, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 11:15 AM Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 10:44:01AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> There is a device in the wild with non-updatable firmware coming with
>>> ACPI tables with rejected "ltr,ltrf216a" compatible.  Linux kernel still
>>> supports this device via ACPI PRP0001, however the compatible was never
>>> accepted to bindings.  Lack of bindings causes checkpatch.pl warning
>>> about undocumented compatible.
>>
>> Why do we care? For checkpatch.pl I really don't. That hack check I
>> wrote makes any string in binding docs a documented compatible. I have a
>> better check using the schema written, but that would make checkpatch
>> dependent on dtschema tools. So maybe just time to drop this check from
>> checkpatch as we have other ways to check and track this.

People still use checkpatch - both to actually test patches before
sending and also to fix random existing issues.

>>
>> However, I do care about 'make dt_compatible_check'. Besides these ACPI
>> cases, there's a bunch of cases that we'll never have schemas for. Like
>> everything from Sparc... Old PowerMac stuff... So I would like to
>> 'document' them just to exclude from dt_compatible_check. So perhaps
>> this should be generalized.

Sure, I can rewrite it to more generic.

> 
> Here's my list of what's really not documented. It's just a grep of
> the bindings of each compatible found by 'make dt_compatible_check'.
> Probably anything with SUNW, ibm, amcc, or mpc5 is never going to be
> documented.
> 
> There are some false positives such as cases documented like "fsl,<chip>-guts".

I'll come with something, maybe incomplete but it could grow later.

Best regards,
Krzysztof