linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] dt-bindings: mfd: aspeed,ast2x00-scu: allow #size-cells range

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:
 <TY2PPF5CB9A1BE65E96ED9C3CE0E8C7A53EF2F5A@TY2PPF5CB9A1BE6.apcprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2025 07:05:48 +0000
From: Ryan Chen <ryan_chen@...eedtech.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, Rob
 Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor
 Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>, Andrew Jeffery
	<andrew@...econstruct.com.au>, "devicetree@...r.kernel.org"
	<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org"
	<linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] dt-bindings: mfd: aspeed,ast2x00-scu: allow #size-cells
 range

> Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: mfd: aspeed,ast2x00-scu: allow #size-cells
> range
> 
> On 20/10/2025 08:39, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 20/10/2025 08:31, Ryan Chen wrote:
> >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: mfd: aspeed,ast2x00-scu: allow
> >>> #size-cells range
> >>>
> >>> On 20/10/2025 04:07, Ryan Chen wrote:
> >>>> The #size-cells property in the Aspeed SCU binding is currently
> >>>> fixed to a constant value of 1. However, newer SoCs (ex. AST2700)
> >>>> may require two size cells to describe certain subregions or
> >>>
> >>> "may"? So there is no issue yet?
> >>
> >> while I submit ast2700 platform,
> >
> > So there is no warning currently? Then don't mention. You cannot use
> > argument of possible future warning as there is a warning needing to
> > be fixed. This makes no sense. Like you add bug in your patchset and
> > then send *different* patch claiming you are fixing a bug.
> >
> >
> >> These warnings appear when validating the AST2700 EVB device tree.
> >> The SCU nodes on AST2700 have subdevices (such as clock and reset
> >> controllers) that require two address cells, which is not allowed by
> >> the current `const: 1` constraint in the schema.
> >>
> >> Here is the related report:
> >>   https://lkml.org/lkml/2025/9/2/1165
> >
> > This must be together, so we can review entire picture, not pieces by
> > pieces. Organize your work correctly, so reviewing will be easy.
> >
> Anyway, I managed to find your original work and there is no need for this
> patch at all. You don't have 64-bit sizes there.
Thanks, I will keep #size-cells = <1>; for my next step. 

> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof