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: <68e1f0da-1fc8-44c0-bd65-4bb275daf792@oss.qualcomm.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2025 00:33:44 +0530
From: Hrishabh Rajput <hrishabh.rajput@....qualcomm.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
        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 9/4/2025 6:47 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> 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

I agree with your points. I will do my best so that situations like 
these don't arise and save everyone's time. Apologies.


Thanks,

Hrishabh