linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] dt-bindings: display: msm: dp-controller: document clock parents better

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: <pxi2nf4h34xtkickkkuwh4svvhbtsutuz5u3ukzgfgd5rzzcps@g4gct5zuc6kj>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2024 12:09:42 +0200
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>, 
	Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>, Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>, 
	Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>, David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, 
	Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>, Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>, 
	Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>, 
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, 
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Kuogee Hsieh <quic_khsieh@...cinc.com>, 
	Mahadevan <quic_mahap@...cinc.com>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, 
	freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] dt-bindings: display: msm: dp-controller: document
 clock parents better

On Wed, Dec 04, 2024 at 09:02:18AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2024 at 03:41:48PM +0200, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 03, 2024 at 09:01:31AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > On 03/12/2024 04:31, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
> > > > Document the assigned-clock-parents better for the DP controller node
> > > > to indicate its functionality better.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > You change the clocks entirely, not "document". I would say that's an
> > > ABI break if it really is a Linux requirement. You could avoid any
> > > problems by just dropping the property from binding.
> > 
> > But if you take a look at the existing usage, the proposed change
> > matches the behaviour. So, I'd say, it's really a change that makes
> > documentation follow the actual hardware.
> 
> First, this should be in the commit msg, instead of "document better to
> indicate functionality better".
> 
> Second, what is the point of documenting it in the first place if you
> can change it and changing has no impact? So maybe just drop?

So, do you suggest setting both of the property descriptions to true? Or
dropping them completely and using unevaluatedProperties instead of
additionalProperties?

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry