linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] ARM: dts: omap: omap4-epson-embt2ws: misc gpio definitions

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: <7h4j4usdbz.fsf@baylibre.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2024 16:23:44 -0700
From: Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>
To: "Rob Herring (Arm)" <robh@...nel.org>, Andreas Kemnade
 <andreas@...nade.info>
Cc: aaro.koskinen@....fi, rogerq@...nel.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 tony@...mide.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] ARM: dts: omap: omap4-epson-embt2ws: misc gpio
 definitions

"Rob Herring (Arm)" <robh@...nel.org> writes:

> On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 14:29:53 +0200, Andreas Kemnade wrote:
>> Bring the system into a more defined state and do not rely
>> on things being initialized by bootloader.
>> 
>> Changes in V2:
>> - better comment strange GPIOs
>> - proper names for regulator nodes
>> 
>> Andreas Kemnade (4):
>>   ARM: dts: omap: omap4-epson-embt2ws: define GPIO regulators
>>   ARM: dts: omap: omap4-epson-embt2ws: wire up regulators
>>   ARM: dts: omap: omap4-epson-embt2ws: add unknown gpio outputs
>>   ARM: dts: omap: omap4-epson-embt2ws: add GPIO expander
>> 
>>  .../boot/dts/ti/omap/omap4-epson-embt2ws.dts  | 183 +++++++++++++++++-
>>  1 file changed, 179 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>> 
>> --
>> 2.39.5
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>
> My bot found new DTB warnings on the .dts files added or changed in this
> series.
>
> Some warnings may be from an existing SoC .dtsi. Or perhaps the warnings
> are fixed by another series. Ultimately, it is up to the platform
> maintainer whether these warnings are acceptable or not. No need to reply
> unless the platform maintainer has comments.

This seems like not a new warning, but instead a reoccurance of an
existing warning due to a phandle rename, so I'm planning to pull this
as is.

Kevin