linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC v4 2/2] dt-bindings: leds: lp50xx: Document child reg, fix example

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: <128e3853-7192-4e90-bbb6-cb0b6e1aec3b@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2025 17:34:42 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Johan Adolfsson <johan.adolfsson@...s.com>, Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>,
 Pavel Machek <pavel@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
 <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Andrew Davis <afd@...com>,
 Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@...il.com>
Cc: linux-leds@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...s.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v4 2/2] dt-bindings: leds: lp50xx: Document child reg,
 fix example

On 26/05/2025 16:54, Johan Adolfsson wrote:
> The led child reg node is the index within the bank, document that
> and update the example accordingly.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Johan Adolfsson <johan.adolfsson@...s.com>
> ---
>  .../devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-lp50xx.yaml         | 19 ++++++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-lp50xx.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-lp50xx.yaml
> index 402c25424525..a7b2d87cc39d 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-lp50xx.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-lp50xx.yaml
> @@ -81,7 +81,12 @@ patternProperties:
>  
>          properties:
>            reg:
> -            maxItems: 1
> +            minimum: 0
> +            maximum: 2
"not compatible with minimum
  and maximum."

No, it is compatible. Just do:

items:
  - minimum: 0
    maximum: 2

You call this patchset still an RFC, which usually means - do not
review, not ready. Usually when I review RFC I received negative
response that why do I review it... Therefore I tend to don't care about
RFC. Some maintainers completely ignore RFC.

Please EXPLICITLY document in cover letter why this is RFC and what you
expect from us (IOW, why this is not ready for review).

If dropping RFC, keep versioning (people also tend to do it wrong
completely messing up the tools), although I see you use b4, so this
should be without problem.

Best regards,
Krzysztof