linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/10] dt-bindings: soc: samsung: exynos-pmu: allow power domains as child on g101

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: <b0b9a78e-d54e-4f4f-b99c-b5e5fe071ced@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2025 09:09:43 +0900
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: André Draszik <andre.draszik@...aro.org>,
 Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski
 <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Cc: Peter Griffin <peter.griffin@...aro.org>,
 Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org>,
 Will McVicker <willmcvicker@...gle.com>, kernel-team@...roid.com,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] dt-bindings: soc: samsung: exynos-pmu: allow power
 domains as child on g101

On 07/10/2025 01:43, André Draszik wrote:
> The power domains are a property of / implemented in the PMU. As such,
> they should be modelled as child nodes of the PMU.
> 
> Update the example while at it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: André Draszik <andre.draszik@...aro.org>
> 
> ---
> Note: Ideally, the newly added properties (ranges, etc.) should only be
> 'required' if "^power-domain@[0-9a-f]+$" exists as a patternProperty,
> as they're needed only in that case. As-is, this patch now causes
> warnings for existing DTs as they don't specify the new properties (and
> they shouldn't need to). Only if DTs are updated to include
> power-domains, such an update should also add the new properties.
> 
> I've not been able to come up with the correct schema syntax to achieve
> that. dependencies, dependentRequired, and dependentSchemas don't seem
> to support patterns. Similarly,
>   - if:
>       required:
>         - ...
>     then:
>       required:
>         - ...
> 
> doesn't allow patterns in the 'if' block (or I didn't get the syntax
> right).
> ---
>  .../bindings/soc/samsung/exynos-pmu.yaml           | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/samsung/exynos-pmu.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/samsung/exynos-pmu.yaml
> index f0fb24156da9b8980dcfd5339ae75f12a71cf6d6..c2db1cbb969a9a6fea5208dc2990f2144fa480e6 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/samsung/exynos-pmu.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/samsung/exynos-pmu.yaml
> @@ -93,6 +93,14 @@ properties:
>      minItems: 1
>      maxItems: 32
>  
> +  '#address-cells':
> +    const: 1
> +
> +  '#size-cells':
> +    const: 1
> +
> +  ranges: true
> +
>    dp-phy:
>      $ref: /schemas/phy/samsung,dp-video-phy.yaml
>      unevaluatedProperties: false
> @@ -138,7 +146,7 @@ required:
>    - compatible
>    - reg
>  
> -additionalProperties: false
> +unevaluatedProperties: false

No. Properties must be defined in top level, as explained in writing
schema. If this is getting to complex, GS101 can be moved to its own
binding.

Best regards,
Krzysztof