linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] dt-bindings: display: tegra: document EPP, ISP, MPE and TSEC for Tegra114+

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: <d7fb073f-2b3a-4662-a196-794b6baff307@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2025 10:39:58 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Svyatoslav Ryhel <clamor95@...il.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>,
 Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] dt-bindings: display: tegra: document EPP, ISP,
 MPE and TSEC for Tegra114+

On 11/08/2025 10:15, Svyatoslav Ryhel wrote:
> пн, 11 серп. 2025 р. о 11:11 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> пише:
>>
>> On 11/08/2025 10:01, Svyatoslav Ryhel wrote:
>>>>> +
>>>>> +  reg:
>>>>> +    maxItems: 1
>>>>> +
>>>>> +  interrupts:
>>>>> +    maxItems: 1
>>>>> +
>>>>> +  clocks:
>>>>> +    maxItems: 1
>>>>> +
>>>>> +  clock-names:
>>>>> +    items:
>>>>> +      - const: tsec
>>>>
>>>> Drop -names properties if there is only 1.
>>>
>>> This is added to cover existing binding in tegra210 tree
>>
>> Existing binding? In what tree? This is mainline, we work only on
>> mainline and that's a new binding, so you cannot use argument that there
>> is broken code using it. Otherwise what stops anyone to push broken code
>> and then claim binding has to look because "existing code has something
>> like that"?
>>
> 
> It seems that your words and action do not add up
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/tree/arch/arm64/boot/dts/nvidia/tegra210.dtsi?h=v6.17-rc1#n181

You said binding, now you point DTS...

Anyway, what action does not add up? Which part - you cannot use
argument of existing code as rule for new bindings - is not clear?

I am really fed up with your tone, so I won't be continuing here. I have
you longer explanation but it's just waste of my time.

Best regards,
Krzysztof