netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/3 net-next v3] net: ethernet: ixp4xx: Add DT bindings

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: <CACRpkdZp8OYyQtuhRqGmjc2gVpmjyBMFivHbk3xBiQk5NKbbww@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 25 Apr 2021 02:24:26 +0200
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Cc:     netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Zoltan HERPAI <wigyori@...0.hu>,
        Raylynn Knight <rayknight@...com>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3 net-next v3] net: ethernet: ixp4xx: Add DT bindings

On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 4:49 PM Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> wrote:

> (...) it should be impossible for multiple devices to
> instantiate an MDIO bus. But with device tree, is that still true?
> Should there be validation that only one device has an MDIO bus in its
> device tree?

This would be more of a question to Rob.

I am "OK" at writing YAML but not great.

If I were to express that out of 3 nodes in the DT one and only
one *must* contain a certain subnode, but it doesn't matter
which one, I have no idea how to express that.

Since the abstract syntax in YAML is pretty much stateless
this beats me.

Yours,
Linus Walleij