linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: input: add ST-Microelectronics FTS2BA61Y touchscreen binding

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: <716da762-3aa8-4c39-b9fe-8e923b20a0d5@kernel.org>
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2025 16:48:49 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Eric Gonçalves <ghatto404@...il.com>,
 Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
 Henrik Rydberg <rydberg@...math.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>
Cc: Ivaylo Ivanov <ivo.ivanov.ivanov1@...il.com>,
 linux-input@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: input: add ST-Microelectronics
 FTS2BA61Y touchscreen binding

On 11/09/2025 23:19, Eric Gonçalves wrote:
> Add the bindings for ST-Microelectronics FTS2BA61Y capacitive touchscreen.

Please wrap commit message according to Linux coding style / submission
process (neither too early nor over the limit):
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.4-rc1/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L597

A nit, subject: drop second/last, redundant "bindings". The
"dt-bindings" prefix is already stating that these are bindings.
See also:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.17-rc3/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.rst#L18

> 
> Signed-off-by: Eric Gonçalves <ghatto404@...il.com>



> +
> +properties:
> +  compatible:
> +    const: st,fts2ba61y
> +
> +  reg:
> +    maxItems: 1
> +
> +  interrupts:
> +    maxItems: 1
> +
> +  avdd-supply: true
> +  vdd-supply: true
> +
> +unevaluatedProperties: false

This goes after required: field.

Other than that - why isn't this finished (non RFC)? Code looks ok, but
I also did not look that thorough.

Best regards,
Krzysztof