From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FE2D54706C; Thu, 17 Sep 2026 18:28:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789669698; cv=none; b=MTRwGS1uFpGx9YN8HNHjP8vrw+MF6TplAyp64nK3UK/sHyyoxWHId6sYm5cEQHjpbYXvtasSCy/iopuwXjByEF9FhAbuXyqNH0KYkdiDCft7bqURXucoXAnFFMiARJ7M5n/D/gcESnyBwl2LegGhodRwQxhIlHTxKv0BPDbKTTg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789669698; c=relaxed/simple; bh=vD/6obX4z8T11JfWnL4Ez3TMEKuYjgi7crLualh9NO0=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=FbbjSNoyeqUMbS1yGjIYFltTrO39wZewqEspWHjF0uecabYd+VqLEfqOfNeSjwtw32Rlxzkximci67Gh7kFfpsKjhhjHHExX+6UBVubHTbP7eIt8g/75pna7qU27QFdi07TXDLAUzJEmBjr7Wqeu1QpmVRvPKf7JqleRtdes5Tc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=ds4XMj1b; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="ds4XMj1b" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CB5C91F00893; Thu, 17 Sep 2026 18:28:16 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1789669697; bh=er8IzFh4qYngJOikftaCey83vRaiXpjWUL2rZuG9EO4=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=ds4XMj1bv/2YM2gO4TTWMdxHCMlNx9jOxzIPMc5WrFFQTxAKcuxhcQv4nCctbA9r+ 3LKJcgMY+7NcfVsBF4rkWeGhjPMl5nOfiKaHEmEi4RbJGUKk7CR05NADynkRMZhPWb 1ywahBepfx5KPApsEw4dnoWvpU0ei7Rzhi6VKEONN/iDML5I9XU5jy6B9sFnSrsLyq 30PyhA2hy/taLG3ZnCxQJXLymvAUN2gGYT7e5GPB9qazaYlxtd17gXlKxUIOpjkYKh V/Sj+aXOzdr+vP4Ma2TLyayndisQavVBkeobfGmatJc4MnZ8OoCPzORF7QIgmnaSh9 qjuwK+G26Rw5Q== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] dt-bindings: remoteproc: imx_rproc: document memory-region-names to avoid hidden ABI Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: Frank.Li@oss.nxp.com Cc: imx@lists.linux.dev, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, robh@kernel.org, Frank.Li@kernel.org, conor+dt@kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260917-memory-region-name-v4-1-260755920ebf@nxp.com> References: <20260917-memory-region-name-v4-0-260755920ebf@nxp.com> <20260917-memory-region-name-v4-1-260755920ebf@nxp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2026 18:28:16 +0000 Message-Id: <20260917182816.CB5C91F00893@smtp.kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(= s) to consider: - [Low] dt-bindings: erroneous regex pattern allows invalid region names -- commit 3fcb4e5cb8e128ab899161b1bbe809e6627ba8ca Author: Laurentiu Mihalcea dt-bindings: remoteproc: imx_rproc: document memory-region-names to avoid h= idden ABI This commit documents the optional memory-region-names property for the i.MX remoteproc driver. It explicitly identifies expected memory regions to avoid relying on memory node names as a hidden ABI. Link: https://lore.kernel.org/imx/a3602ef8-2b77-4cc3-adef-2c4cba08a5d9@nabl= adev.com/ [1] Link: https://lore.kernel.org/imx/alexXTYQHUs76J7v@SMW015318/T/#mb9dc709ff3= adc24d9db6d30c973f37b580f6f1f9 [2] > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/fsl,imx-rproc.y= aml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/fsl,imx-rproc.yaml > index c18f71b648890..5d98d21035f8c 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/fsl,imx-rproc.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/fsl,imx-rproc.yaml > @@ -62,6 +62,15 @@ properties: > minItems: 1 > maxItems: 32 > =20 > + memory-region-names: > + minItems: 1 > + maxItems: 32 > + items: > + anyOf: > + - const: rsc-table > + - pattern: "^vdev[0-9]+(buffer|vring[0-9])+$" [Severity: Low] Does this regex pattern correctly validate the memory region names? By applying the + quantifier to the capture group (buffer|vring[0-9]) rather than the digit class [0-9], this allows repeated suffixes like vdev0bufferbuffer or vdev0vring0vring1 to pass schema validation. It also restricts the vring index to a single digit, so vdev0vring10 would = fail. Should the + be moved to the digit class, such as "^vdev[0-9]+(buffer|vring[0-9]+)$"? --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260917-memory-reg= ion-name-v4-0-260755920ebf@nxp.com?part=3D1