linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v21 1/4] dt-bindings: i2c: Split AST2600 binding into a new YAML

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <0b9abd87b877595c13011a3d8b4e80e05488effc.camel@codeconstruct.com.au>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 14:04:18 +0800
From: Jeremy Kerr <jk@...econstruct.com.au>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, Ryan Chen
 <ryan_chen@...eedtech.com>,  bmc-sw@...eedtech.com,
 benh@...nel.crashing.org, joel@....id.au,  andi.shyti@...nel.org,
 robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org, 
 andrew@...econstruct.com.au, p.zabel@...gutronix.de, 
 andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, naresh.solanki@...ements.com, 
 linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, openbmc@...ts.ozlabs.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org,  linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org,  linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v21 1/4] dt-bindings: i2c: Split AST2600 binding into a
 new YAML

Hi Kyzysztof,

> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/ast2600-i2c.yaml
> > @@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
> > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
> > +%YAML 1.2
> > +---
> > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/i2c/ast2600-i2c.yaml#
> > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> > +
> > +title: ASPEED I2C on the AST26XX SoCs
> > +
> > +maintainers:
> > +  - Ryan Chen <ryan_chen@...eedtech.com>
> > +
> > +allOf:
> > +  - $ref: /schemas/i2c/i2c-controller.yaml#
> > +
> > +properties:
> > +  compatible:
> > +    enum:
> > +      - aspeed,ast2600-i2c-bus
> > +
> > +  reg:
> > +    minItems: 1
> 
> <form letter>
> This is a friendly reminder during the review process.
> 
> It seems my or other reviewer's previous comments were not fully
> addressed. Maybe the feedback got lost between the quotes, maybe you
> just forgot to apply it. Please go back to the previous discussion
> and
> either implement all requested changes or keep discussing them.
> 
> Thank you.
> </form letter>
> 
> > +    items:
> > +      - description: address offset and range of bus
> > +      - description: address offset and range of bus buffer
> > +
> > +  interrupts:
> > +    maxItems: 1
> > +
> > +  clocks:
> > +    maxItems: 1
> 
> Nothing improved

That was mostly the point - this first patch just splits out the 2600
definitions to the new file, with zero change.

That means the *actual* changes to the binding are visible via the diff
in 2/4, and not hidden by the copy.

This was mentioned on v20, and you replied saying it was irrelevant to
the separate discussion around the rationale for the change, but didn't
object to the split-patches approach.

If your preference is to *not* do this via a verbatim copy as an initial
step (and essentially squash with 2/4), that's also fine, but I'm sure
that knowing your preference would help Ryan out here.

Cheers,


Jeremy