linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 6/7] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Add missing vendor string

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: <Zx-OHucz4xOL8eyj@pluto>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2024 13:17:06 +0000
From: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Cc: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	arm-scmi@...r.kernel.org, james.quinlan@...adcom.com,
	f.fainelli@...il.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
	etienne.carriere@...com, peng.fan@....nxp.com, michal.simek@....com,
	quic_sibis@...cinc.com, quic_nkela@...cinc.com,
	dan.carpenter@...aro.org, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/7] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Add missing
 vendor string

On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 12:22:54PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 12:01:50PM +0000, Cristian Marussi wrote:
> > Recently introduced max-rx-timeout-ms optionao property is missing a
> > vendor prefix.
> >
> > Add the vendor prefix from the original committer.
> >
> 
> It should be "arm," not "nxp," just because NXP happens to introduce that.
> It just highlight that the property is X vendor specific and here it is
> associated with SCMI and specifically Arm SCMI, so "arm,". If for some
> reason nxp or any other vendor overrides this definition and need to add
> additional property then they can add their own vendor name into that
> property.
> 
> If there are no objections, I can fix it up when applying.

My bad. Sure go for it.

Thanks,
Cristian