netdev - RE: [net-next][PATCH v4] dt-bindings: dsa: Add lan9303 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <MWHPR11MB1693223A91222AEAAA3FC69FEF299@MWHPR11MB1693.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Mon, 17 Oct 2022 18:33:31 +0000
From:   <Jerry.Ray@...rochip.com>
To:     <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>, <andrew@...n.ch>,
        <vivien.didelot@...il.com>, <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        <olteanv@...il.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>, <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        <kuba@...nel.org>, <pabeni@...hat.com>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [net-next][PATCH v4] dt-bindings: dsa: Add lan9303 yaml

>> +
>> +  reg:
>> +    maxItems: 1
>> +
>> +  reset-gpios:
>> +    description: Optional reset line
>> +    maxItems: 1
>> +
>> +  reset-duration:
>> +    description: Reset duration in milliseconds
>> +    default: 200
>
>This is a friendly reminder during the review process.
>
>It seems my previous comments were not fully addressed. Maybe my
>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.
>

I am documenting "what is" rather than what I think it should be. I
would prefer there be a "-ms" suffix on the name, but that was not
what was in the pre-existing code.

I added the "default: 200" line and can add a "maxItems: 1", but begin
getting errors when I attempt to further define this field as a
uint32 type or anything like that.

And no, I'm not getting any warnings or errors from the dt_bindings_check.

I reviewed the v3 comments.  The only other thing I missed in v4 was changing
the comments from C++ style to C style comments.

>> +
>> +required:
>> +  - compatible
>> +  - reg
>> +
>Best regards,
>Krzysztof
>

Regards,
Jerry.