linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: mailbox: Add ASPEED AST2700 series SoC

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: <e9a1d863-a08c-4f6a-97b3-4a752606544a@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2025 07:48:01 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Jammy Huang <jammy_huang@...eedtech.com>,
 "jassisinghbrar@...il.com" <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
 "robh@...nel.org" <robh@...nel.org>, "krzk+dt@...nel.org"
 <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, "conor+dt@...nel.org" <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
 "joel@....id.au" <joel@....id.au>,
 "andrew@...econstruct.com.au" <andrew@...econstruct.com.au>,
 "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
 "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
 <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
 "linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
 "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: mailbox: Add ASPEED AST2700 series
 SoC

On 05/06/2025 03:44, Jammy Huang wrote:
>> On 04/06/2025 14:55, Jammy Huang wrote:
>>> +
>>> +examples:
>>> +  - |
>>> +    #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/arm-gic.h>
>>> +
>>> +    mailbox@...1c200 {
>>> +        compatible = "aspeed,ast2700-mailbox";
>>> +        reg = <0x0 0x12c1c200 0x0 0x200>;
>>
>> Last time I asked to test, you responded you will test. What happened?
>> You did not test. This is just disappointing.
> I did test for my last patch. In the end, the errors shown as below did not include ast2700-mailbox.
> So I think it is ok. I will check what's wrong on my environment.

No, it is not ok and with simple dt_binding_check I immediately
reproduced the issue (wrong addresses in example), thus you did not test it.

Best regards,
Krzysztof