netdev - Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: can: convert tcan4x5x.txt to DT schema

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: <f5a28e36-ef80-4ccf-b615-03fb10eb661e@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2024 13:41:26 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Sean Nyekjaer <sean@...nix.com>
Cc: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
 Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>,
 "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: can: convert tcan4x5x.txt to DT schema

On 05/11/2024 13:24, Sean Nyekjaer wrote:
>>>
>>> If you use fallback for a 4552 then it would enable the use of the
>>> optional pins device-state-gpios and device-wake-gpios. But the chip
>>> doesn't have those so the hw guys would connect them and they won't
>>> be in the DT.
>>>
>>> Honestly I'm confused :/
>>
>> What stops anyone to use tcan4x5x ALONE for 4552? Nothing. And that's
>> the problem here.
>>
>>
> 
> Schema check will fail, but driver wize it will work just fine.

Schema will not fail. That's the problem - no errors will be ever
reported. The entire point of the schema, in contrast to TXT, is to
detect errors and that ridiculous wildcard used as front compatible
affects/reduces detection.

> Agree that is kinda broken.
> If I have time I can try to fix that later.

No, the fix is to drop the wildcard alone, as I said in your RFC.

> 
> Please explain one more time for me. Is this a comment on the if
> sentence or the broken behavior of the driver?

This is just generic comment, nothing to change here because you decided
not to fix that wildcard from old binding.

Best regards,
Krzysztof