linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] dt-bindings: arm: imx8mp: Add Ultratronik Ultra-MACH SBC

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: <20250612-snobbish-outrageous-nyala-dca804@kuoka>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2025 09:09:19 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Goran Rađenović <goran.radni@...il.com>
Cc: boerge.struempfel@...il.com, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, 
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, 
	Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] dt-bindings: arm: imx8mp: Add Ultratronik
 Ultra-MACH SBC

On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 01:30:37PM GMT, Goran Rađenović wrote:
> Document the Ultratronik Ultra-MACH SBC, based on the NXP i.MX8MP SoC.
> 
> This board is manufactured by Ultratronik GmbH and uses the compatible
> string "ux,imx8mp-ultra-mach-sbc".
> 
> Signed-off-by: Goran Rađenović <goran.radni@...il.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml | 6 ++++++
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml
> index d3b5e6923e41..132a6f39b59a 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml
> @@ -1232,6 +1232,12 @@ properties:
>            - const: tq,imx8mp-tqma8mpql            # TQ-Systems GmbH i.MX8MP TQMa8MPQL SOM
>            - const: fsl,imx8mp
>  
> +      - description: Ultratronik SBC i.MX8MP based boards
> +        items:
> +          - enum:

Nothing improved... got actually worse, because you never tested it.

  ^
  |
Look here. This is '+' means you added it. My previous comment was that
it should be part of previous enum. If you add enum, then it is not part
of previous, right?

Best regards,
Krzysztof