linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: Add binding for gunyah watchdog

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: <29a91114-d862-452e-b7bf-1b659ad7d831@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2025 15:17:55 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Hrishabh Rajput <hrishabh.rajput@....qualcomm.com>,
 Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
 Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>,
 Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>, Guenter Roeck
 <linux@...ck-us.net>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: Add binding for gunyah watchdog

On 04/09/2025 15:07, Hrishabh Rajput wrote:
>>> +properties:
>>> +  compatible:
>>> +    allOf:
>>> +      - const: gunyah-hypervisor
>>> +      - const: simple-bus
>> What? No.
>>
>> Don't create patches with AI.
> 
> This patch was not created with AI. Reference was taken from the patch [1].

There is no such syntax like allOf in [1]. Nowhere in Linux kernel, btw,
that's some total invention, thus my gut told me - it must be made with
poor AI tools.

> 
> That being said, I see your point about the mistakes which were made 
> while adding the compatible "simple-bus".
> I apologize for the same.
> 
> I will make sure `make dt_binding_check` passes with latest versions of 
> dtschema and yamllint as pointed out by Rob and as should have been done 
> with this patch as well.

No, that's not enough.

You should ask for internal review. I did an extra effort, I checked
that and:

1. You did post it for internal review, BUT:

2. Your internal testing system pointed out errors (schema failure) or
failed itself,

3. You did not ask your internal testing system to RETEST the patch, in
case this was a system failure. That's your mistake. If this was true
failure of schema, then you obviously should not send it, but
investigate why schema fails on your patch.

4. You did not receive review (at least no track of it) but decided to
post it on mailing list. That's also your mistake, because lack of
internal review does not mean you can post it to the mailing lists. Talk
with your managers or colleagues about missing review, for example.

Best regards,
Krzysztof