On 22/01/2025 13:55, Pankaj Gupta wrote:
>>
>>> NAK. Node can be called firmware and your entire driver collapes.
>> The macro is updated to verify the correct-ness of node-name.
>
>> NAK, do you understand the term? I provided the reasons for NAK.
> Your suggestion is to enable the driver for all allowed node names.
> 1. firmware
> 2. secure
> 3. secure-enclave
>
> Understood, will allow these names for the driver.
No, you just cannot have such checks.
>
>>
>> + (!memcmp(dev_of_node->full_name, NODE_NAME,
>> strlen(NODE_NAME)) ?\ ((strlen(dev_of_node->full_name) >
>> strlen(NODE_NAME)) ?\ GET_ASCII_TO_U8((strlen(dev_of_node-
>>> full_name) - strlen(NODE_NAME)),\ dev_of_node-
>>> full_name[strlen(NODE_NAME) + 1], \ -
>> dev_of_node->full_name[strlen(NODE_NAME) + 2]) : 0)
>> + dev_of_node-
>>> full_name[strlen(NODE_NAME) + 2]) : 0) : -EINVAL)
>>
>>>>> + info_list = device_get_match_data(dev); + if (idx >>=
>>>>> info_list->>num_mu) { + dev_err(dev,
>>>>> + "Incorrect node name :%s\n",
>>>>> + dev->>of_node->>full_name);
>>>
>>>> Nope. "firmware" or "secure" are correct node names.
>>> New check is added to validate the correctness of the node name for
>>> this driver. Replaced the message of " Incorrect node name..", with
>>> the help message.
>
>> You did not resolve the NAK.
>> 1. You cannot reject correct names.
> Ok, Understood.
>> 2. You cannot add undocumented ABI. You could try to document it, but it will
>> not solve the first problem.
> Ok. Will not add the ABI document.
Hm? I said you cannot add ABI without documentation and you say you will
not add the ABI?
Well, I NAK-ed this patch and consider all future versions having
anything close to this NAKed as well.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
