linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv3 wireless-next 7/7] dt-bindings: net: wireless: rt2800: add

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: <cf137d24-3561-4e53-8f35-70ab501afcb8@kernel.org>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2025 10:53:35 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@...il.com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: Stanislaw Gruszka <stf_xl@...pl>, Rosen Penev <rosenp@...il.com>,
 linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
 <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
 Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
 AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
 "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
 <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 "open list:MIPS" <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>,
 "moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support"
 <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
 "moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support"
 <linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 wireless-next 7/7] dt-bindings: net: wireless: rt2800:
 add

On 13/07/2025 01:20, Julian Calaby wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof and Rob,
> 
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2025 at 2:59 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/07/2025 18:53, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 12/07/2025 12:40, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
>>>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 09:48:49AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 03:40:30PM -0700, Rosen Penev wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 2:40 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/07/2025 22:08, Rosen Penev wrote:
>>>>>>>> Add device-tree bindings for the RT2800 SOC wifi device found in older
>>>>>>>> Ralink/Mediatek devices.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Rosen Penev <rosenp@...il.com>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>  .../bindings/net/wireless/ralink,rt2800.yaml  | 47 +++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>>  1 file changed, 47 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ralink,rt2800.yaml
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ralink,rt2800.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ralink,rt2800.yaml
>>>>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>>>>> index 000000000000..8c13b25bd8b4
>>>>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ralink,rt2800.yaml
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Filename should match compatible. You were already changing something
>>>>>>> here...
>>>>>> hrm? that makes no sense. Various drivers have multiple compatible lines.
>>>>>
>>>>> Luckily we do not speak about drivers here. Anyway, follow standard
>>>>> review practices, you don't get special rules.
>>>>
>>>> Could you please elaborate what you mean ?
>>>
>>> Rosen replied in abrasive way, so I am not going to dig this.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I greped through Documentation/devicetree/bindings/*/*.yaml and plenty
>>>
>>> I assume you refer to last 2 years bindings, not something older, right?
>>> It is really poor argument to find old files and use them as example
>>> "they did like that".
>>>
>>>> of "compatible:" items do not match the filename. So hard to tell
>>>
>>> I did not ask for compatible to match filename.
>>>
>>>> what rule you are referencing, as it seems it's not really applied.
>>> Check reviews on the lists. It is pretty standard review. Everyone gets
>>> it for this case here - single device, single compatible.
>>
>> BTW, it is not hiding on the lists:
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/?q=f%3Aherring+filename
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/?q=f%3Akozlowski+filename
> 
> I just had a quick look through the in-tree documentation on device
> tree bindings and can't find this rule there.
> 
> It's good that you and Rob are consistent in applying this rule, but
> pointing to the mailing list archives instead of the documentation
> makes it feel like patch submissions in this space are judged by some
> arbitrary set of undocumented rules.
> 
> Could you please update the documentation with the current set of
> requirements so that people who are new to this space have a
> consistent set of rules they can apply to their work?


I agree. I already grew the docs some time ago, then few days ago and I
have in plan to keep growing it more. I'll document also this one,
thanks for the pointer.

Regardless of the missing docs, argument "I found some old code like
that" is almost never correct. And even if you find newest code like
that, you still need to consider all reviews and discussions on the
lists leading to such or some other decision. Including the most trivial
reason: we often don't care about minor details. Filename is such minor
detail, unused label in DTS example is another, even more frequent one
(we complain about it but also accept many patches with it).

Do I question every reviewer's comments like that on my patches, which I
send a lot? That I found some old code which was different than what
reviewer asked me? No.

Best regards,
Krzysztof