linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: arm: google: add gs101-raven and generic gs101-pixel

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: <45ef0069-5414-49a2-b7e4-4b0c70c0d1a4@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2024 16:58:55 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: André Draszik <andre.draszik@...aro.org>,
 Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Peter Griffin
 <peter.griffin@...aro.org>, Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org>,
 Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>
Cc: Will McVicker <willmcvicker@...gle.com>, kernel-team@...roid.com,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: arm: google: add gs101-raven and
 generic gs101-pixel

On 23/12/2024 16:54, André Draszik wrote:
> On Mon, 2024-12-23 at 16:39 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 23/12/2024 16:31, André Draszik wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2024-12-23 at 15:14 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You now say that these are valid boards:
>>>>
>>>> compatible = "google,gs101", "google,gs101";
>>>
>>> Sorry, I don't see how (apart from the fact that dtbs_check flags
>>> non-unique elements anyway). The result of the patch is:
>>>
>>>         minItems: 2
>>>         maxItems: 3
>>>         items:
>>>           enum:
>>>             - google,gs101-oriole
>>>             - google,gs101-raven
>>>             - google,gs101-pixel
>>>             - google,gs101
>>
>> The problem is this line. Although entire concept of flexible list is
>> neither need nor ever recommended.
> 
> All of this was inspired by Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/xilinx/xilinx.yaml
> I guess not a good example in this case...

These are SoMs with multiple revisions, so quite a different case. Plus
there is actual reason from Michal for doing that explained in commit msg.

> 
>>
>>>         allOf:
>>>           - contains:
>>>               const: google,gs101-pixel
>>>           - contains:
>>>               const: google,gs101
>>>
>>> So one can not have 'google,gs101' twice. And if I only add
>>
>> Still can be, but indeed not with my example but:
>>
>> "google,gs101", "google,gs101", "google,gs101-pixel";
> 
> This example doesn't pass irrespective of binding, because
> dtbs_check will complain about non-unique elements.

Ah, cool, I wasn't really sure. I checked only dt_binding_check on some
example and there it was not spotted.


Best regards,
Krzysztof