linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] dt-bindings: iio: mcp9600: Add compatible for microchip,mcp9601

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: <3f256b8e-dc7a-466d-be53-d6e324b44cb7@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2025 08:42:57 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>, Jonathan Cameron
 <jic23@...nel.org>, Ben Collins <bcollins@...ter.com>,
 Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@...log.com>,
 Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
 <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Andrew Hepp <andrew.hepp@...pp.dev>,
 linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] dt-bindings: iio: mcp9600: Add compatible for
 microchip,mcp9601

On 17/08/2025 23:10, Ben Collins wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I couldn't find anything that would easily describe this type of layout:
> ...
>>> We usually do this the other way around. The base binding lists
>>> all of the possibilities then an -if: constraint limits them
>>> if needed.
>>>
>>>
>>> So don't change what is there already and then add:
>>>
> ...
>> This might be a little more complicated. I want to add a boolean for
>> microchip,vsense so the SC/OC aren't even available without that flag
>> being true (default false).
>>
>> I could just assume that having the interrupts means this flag is true,
>> but that doesn't cover the case where the interrupts might not be used
>> or even wired up, but the SC/OC detection in the status register can be
>> used.
>>
>> I was going with this:
>>
> 
> Nevermind, I figured this out. I'll send v4 soon.

You received from David correct code, good idea... yet you ignored it
and sent something incorrect - breaking ABI.
Best regards,
Krzysztof