linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3] dt-bindings: clock: qcom: Remove required-opps from required list on SM8650

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: <c3671b29-d860-4374-80fe-c284da4ac300@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 08:27:58 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Jagadeesh Kona <quic_jkona@...cinc.com>,
 Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
 Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>, Stephen Boyd
 <sboyd@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>
Cc: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir.zapolskiy@...aro.org>,
 Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>,
 Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
 linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Taniya Das <quic_tdas@...cinc.com>,
 Satya Priya Kakitapalli <quic_skakitap@...cinc.com>,
 Imran Shaik <quic_imrashai@...cinc.com>,
 Ajit Pandey <quic_ajipan@...cinc.com>, kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] dt-bindings: clock: qcom: Remove required-opps from
 required list on SM8650

On 30/07/2024 05:45, Jagadeesh Kona wrote:
> -
>  properties:
>    compatible:
>      enum:
> @@ -57,7 +54,24 @@ required:
>    - compatible
>    - clocks
>    - power-domains
> -  - required-opps
> +
> +allOf:
> +  - $ref: qcom,gcc.yaml#
> +  - if:
> +      properties:
> +        compatible:
> +          contains:
> +            enum:
> +              - qcom,sc8280xp-camcc
> +              - qcom,sm8450-camcc
> +              - qcom,sm8550-camcc
> +              - qcom,x1e80100-camcc
> +    then:
> +      required:
> +        - required-opps
> +    else:
> +      properties:
> +        required-opps: false


Why would required-opps be invalid for SM8650? What if we want some
higher opp for some reason? The point of v1 and v2 was oonly to require
required-opps on certain variants, not to disallow it in other cases.

Best regards,
Krzysztof