netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] dt-bindings: net: ti: k3-am654-cpsw-nuss: Update bindings for J7200 CPSW5G

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: <9c331cdc-e34a-1146-fb83-84c2107b2e2a@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 17 Aug 2022 08:50:26 +0300
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Siddharth Vadapalli <s-vadapalli@...com>,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
        pabeni@...hat.com, robh+dt@...nel.org, linux@...linux.org.uk,
        vladimir.oltean@....com, grygorii.strashko@...com, vigneshr@...com,
        nsekhar@...com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kishon@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] dt-bindings: net: ti: k3-am654-cpsw-nuss: Update
 bindings for J7200 CPSW5G

On 17/08/2022 08:14, Siddharth Vadapalli wrote:

>>> -      port@[1-2]:
>>> +      "^port@[1-4]$":
>>>          type: object
>>>          description: CPSWxG NUSS external ports
>>>  
>>> @@ -119,7 +120,7 @@ properties:
>>>          properties:
>>>            reg:
>>>              minimum: 1
>>> -            maximum: 2
>>> +            maximum: 4
>>>              description: CPSW port number
>>>  
>>>            phys:
>>> @@ -151,6 +152,18 @@ properties:
>>>  
>>>      additionalProperties: false
>>>  
>>> +if:
>>
>> This goes under allOf just before unevaluated/additionalProperties:false
> 
> allOf was added by me in v3 series patch and it is not present in the
> file. I removed it in v4 after Rob Herring's suggestion. Please let me
> know if simply moving the if-then statements to the line above
> additionalProperties:false would be fine.

I think Rob's comment was focusing not on using or not-using allOf, but
on format of your entire if-then-else. Your v3 was huge and included
allOf in wrong place).

Now you add if-then in proper place, but it is still advisable to put it
with allOf, so if ever you grow the if-then by new entry, you do not
have to change the indentation.

Anyway the location is not correct. Regardless if this is if-then or
allOf-if-then, put it just like example schema is suggesting.

Best regards,
Krzysztof