linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] dt-bindings: hwmon: update TI TPS23861 bindings with per-port schema

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: <CAAcybusHjAR67N0rumb6M_uG1ct3aa=zv2XkpUjhSSxv0NdzFA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2025 20:00:19 -0700
From: Gregory Fuchedgi <gfuchedgi@...il.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: Robert Marko <robert.marko@...tura.hr>, Luka Perkov <luka.perkov@...tura.hr>, 
	Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, 
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, 
	linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] dt-bindings: hwmon: update TI TPS23861 bindings
 with per-port schema

On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 12:20 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> wrote:
> > +  shutdown-gpios:
> powerdown-gpios, see gpio-consumer-common.yaml
It is called shutdown in the datasheet, but seems like neither powerdown nor
shutdown truly reflects its purpose. This pin doesn't power down the controller
itself. It shuts down the ports while keeping the controller available for
configuration over i2c. Should I call it ti,ports-shutdown-gpios or maybe
ti,shutdown-gpios? Any other suggestions?

> > +patternProperties:
> > +  "^port@[0-3]$":
> This goes to ports property.
Do you mean I should add another DT node that groups all ports? such as:
compatible = "ti,tps23861"; ports { port@0 {...} port@1 {...} }

If that's the case would it make sense to use "^.*$" pattern to allow any name
and drop the port label? Is patternProperties even needed in this case?

> > +        tps23861@28 {
> Node names should be generic. See also an explanation and list of
Ack. Should I also fix the existing example in this patch?

> > +            label = "my_poe_controller";
> Use useful names or just drop it.
I thought this is good as an example? A useful name would be board specific.