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

Date:   Tue, 18 Oct 2022 18:34:34 -0400
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Jerry.Ray@...rochip.com, 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

On 17/10/2022 14:33, Jerry.Ray@...rochip.com wrote:
>>> +
>>> +  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.

There are no errors after adding proper type. However I cannot help you
for some unspecified code with unspecified warnings.

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

Best regards,
Krzysztof