netdev - Re: [PATCH v1 1/5] dt-bindings: net: Add TI DP83TD510 10BaseT1L PHY

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]

Message-ID: <bz5ybgnpkjwqde6kfq6oiyme34gthvnyz5rcfwojqq2aquwjle@aypks6sf45wi>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2024 10:52:15 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, 
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, 
	Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>, Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>, 
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, 
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, 
	Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@...rochip.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, kernel@...gutronix.de, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/5] dt-bindings: net: Add TI DP83TD510 10BaseT1L PHY

On Sat, Dec 07, 2024 at 09:00:32AM +0100, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> > > > > +properties:
> > > > > +  compatible:
> > > > > +    enum:
> > > > > +      - ethernet-phy-id2000.0181
> > > > 
> > > > There's nothing specific here, can someone remind me why the generic
> > > > binding is not enough?
> > > 
> > > The missing binding was blamed by checkpatch. Haw should I proceed with this
> > > patch?
> > 
> > Does dtbs_check complain when you use it in a dts? What you have here
> > matches against the pattern ^ethernet-phy-id[a-f0-9]{4}\\.[a-f0-9]{4}$
> > so I think it won't. checkpatch might be too dumb to evaluate the regex?
> 
> dtbs_check didn't complained about it, only checkpatch.

Checkpatch is not a reason to add bindings. Missing binding would be a
reason (e.g. pointed out by dtschema), but I understand this is not the
case here, so drop the patch.

Best regards,
Krzysztof