linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFT 2/6] gpio: mmio: get chip label and GPIO base from device properties

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: <CAMRc=MdEWmgj8hTY3fQrXnDDv6pmK9XPvT9gE=5oGEs8R7GOVA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2025 12:28:58 +0200
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>, 
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, 
	Liviu Dudau <liviu.dudau@....com>, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>, 
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>, Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@....fi>, 
	Janusz Krzysztofik <jmkrzyszt@...il.com>, Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, 
	Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>, 
	linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, 
	patches@...nsource.cirrus.com, linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFT 2/6] gpio: mmio: get chip label and GPIO base from
 device properties

On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 12:26 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> >>>> I wouldn't be stoked to see device trees abusing the "gpio-mmio,base"
> >>>> property all of a sudden just because it now exists as a device
> >>>> property though... I kind of wish we had a way to opt out of exposing
> >>>> this to all the sub-property paths. But it seems tiresome, so:
> >>>>
> >>>> Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
> >>>>
> >>>> Yours,
> >>>> Linus Walleij
> >>>
> >>> That's not a problem - this property is not in any DT bindings and as
> >>> such is not an allowed property in DT sources. For out-of-tree DTs? We
> >>> don't care about those.
> >> That's not true, we do care about implied ABI. Try changing/breaking
> >> this later, when users complain their out of tree DTS is affected, and
> >> explaining this all to Greg.
> >>
> >
> > Wait, seriously? I thought that the upstream bindings are the source
> > of truth for device-tree sources...
>
>
> They are, until they are not... ok, we don't really care that much about
> out of tree DTS, but in-tree DTS still could use these and don't care
> about bindings check, right?
>

Could they though? I can imagine this happening by accident but in
general: you'd expect new sources to follow the bindings and be
verifiable against them? Otherwise, what's the point of the schema?

Bart