linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 5/5] dt-bindings: misc: Add binding document for SB-RMI I3C

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: <c09da948-6e31-454d-acca-99c226c18c61@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2025 08:31:44 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Akshay Gupta <akshay.gupta@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, arnd@...db.de, linux@...ck-us.net,
 Anand.Umarji@....com,
 Naveen Krishna Chatradhi <naveenkrishna.chatradhi@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 5/5] dt-bindings: misc: Add binding document for SB-RMI
 I3C

On 28/07/2025 08:10, Akshay Gupta wrote:
> - Document the dt-binding for AMD SB-RMI

Why every commit is a one-item list?

> 
> Reviewed-by: Naveen Krishna Chatradhi <naveenkrishna.chatradhi@....com>

I don't believe these reviews. Code was obviously buggy, but still reviewed.

> Signed-off-by: Akshay Gupta <akshay.gupta@....com>
> ---
>  .../bindings/misc/amd,sbrmi-i3c.yaml          | 56 +++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 56 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/misc/amd,sbrmi-i3c.yaml

Your previous patches make no sense with this...

> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/misc/amd,sbrmi-i3c.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/misc/amd,sbrmi-i3c.yaml
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..1d19571c2095
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/misc/amd,sbrmi-i3c.yaml
> @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
> +%YAML 1.2
> +---
> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/misc/amd,sbrmi-i3c.yaml#
> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> +
> +title: >

>From where did you take such syntax of title?

> +  Sideband Remote Management Interface (SB-RMI) compliant
> +  AMD SoC.
> +
> +maintainers:
> +  - Akshay Gupta <Akshay.Gupta@....com>
> +
> +description: |
> +  SB Remote Management Interface (SB-RMI) is an SMBus compatible
> +  interface that reports AMD SoC's Power (normalized Power) using,
> +  Mailbox Service Request over I3C interface to BMC.
> +  The power attributes in hwmon reports power in microwatts.
> +
> +properties:
> +  reg:
> +    - description: |
> +        Encodes the static I2C address.
> +      Socket 0: 0x3c
> +      Socket 1: 0x38
> +    - description: |
> +        First half of the Provisioned ID (following the PID
> +        definition provided by the I3C specification).
> +        Contains the manufacturer ID left-shifted by 1 (0x224).
> +    - description: |
> +        Second half of the Provisioned ID (following the PID
> +        definition provided by the I3C specification).
> +        Contains the ORing of the part ID left-shifted by 16,
> +        the instance ID left-shifted by 12 and extra information (0x00000002).
> +

And this entire patch is just noop. Makes no difference, makes no impact.

Drop it and write proper bindings with proper description of problem you
are solving.

<form letter>
Please use scripts/get_maintainers.pl to get a list of necessary people
and lists to CC. It might happen, that command when run on an older
kernel, gives you outdated entries. Therefore please be sure you base
your patches on recent Linux kernel.

Tools like b4 or scripts/get_maintainer.pl provide you proper list of
people, so fix your workflow. Tools might also fail if you work on some
ancient tree (don't, instead use mainline) or work on fork of kernel
(don't, instead use mainline). Just use b4 and everything should be
fine, although remember about `b4 prep --auto-to-cc` if you added new
patches to the patchset.

You missed at least devicetree list (maybe more), so this won't be
tested by automated tooling. Performing review on untested code might be
a waste of time.

Please kindly resend and include all necessary To/Cc entries.
</form letter>

Best regards,
Krzysztof