linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] arm64: dts: rockchip: add 'chassis-type' property on PineNote

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: <97df4fc0db4bf43a2a3f2d4d110e3105@manjaro.org>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2025 18:12:10 +0100
From: Dragan Simic <dsimic@...jaro.org>
To: Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@...ow.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
 Maximilian Weigand <mweigand@...igand.net>, Marek Kraus <gamiee@...e64.org>,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] arm64: dts: rockchip: add 'chassis-type' property on
 PineNote

On 2025-02-07 17:39, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> On Fri Feb 7, 2025 at 4:01 PM CET, Dragan Simic wrote:
>> On 2025-02-07 12:11, Diederik de Haas wrote:
>>> Add the recommended chassis-type root node property so userspace can
>>> request the form factor and adjust their behavior accordingly.
>>> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@...ow.org>
>>> Link:
>>> https://github.com/devicetree-org/devicetree-specification/blob/main/source/chapter3-devicenodes.rst#root-node
>> 
>> Maybe the Link tag should be converted into a "[1]" reference?
>> To me, this is more like a reference for this DT addition.
>> 
>> In general, references can also be placed closer to the contents
>> they back up, which isn't possible with Link tags, but of course
>> that doesn't matter much in this case.
> 
> I generally use the "[1]" format when linking to specific claims, which
> I could've done wrt the "recommended". But I considered this a general
> background link and then I prefer to do it via a Link tag.
> 
> If requested by a maintainer I'll change it ofc, but otherwise I prefer
> to keep it as is.

Indeed, in this case it's pretty much irrelevant which format is used.
In fact, it may look nicer to use a Link tag, because there are only
a few lines in the patch description in total. :)

My comment was more about longer commit/patch descriptions with multiple
references, which should benefit from placing references closer to the
backed-up contents using the "[*]" layout, instead of relying on Link
tags to bunch it all together at the end of the description.