linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/10] arm/tegra: initial device tree for tegra30

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]

Date:	Fri, 18 Nov 2011 13:48:05 -0800
From:	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
To:	Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>
Cc:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>,
	Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@...dia.com>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>,
	"devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org" 
	<devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] arm/tegra: initial device tree for tegra30

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com> wrote:
> On 11/18/2011 12:49 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:39:14AM -0800, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> Peter De Schrijver wrote at Thursday, November 17, 2011 9:19 AM:
>>>> This patch adds the initial device tree for tegra30
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/tegra.txt
>>> ...
>>>> +* harmony: tegra20 based development board
>>>> +Required root node properties:
>>>> + - compatible = "nvidia,harmony", "nvidia,tegra20";
>>>> +
>>>> +* seaboard: tegra20 based clamshell reference design
>>>> +Required root node properties:
>>>> + - compatible = "nvidia,seaboard", "nvidia,tegra20";
>>>
>>> Do we really want to list all the board names here? In the future, there
>>> could be tens or hundreds. I would argue that we should just document
>>> nvidia,tegra20 and nvidia,tegra30.
>>
>> Agreed.
>
> It's not really any different than mach-types which does have every
> board in it.

Yeah, and the whole idea of having device trees is to not have to do
code changes when introducing a new derivative board. So enumerating
all supported boards in the documentation means we're back to an
equivalence to having to add machine ids.

> I think if a board requires a new dts, then it needs a unique name.

Sure, that's fine. But the idea is to be able to do it without
changing code for many cases, just provide a new dts that configures
the devices in question.

>>> At a later point, we should fix board-dt.c to solely look for those
>>> compatible values, although this will have to wait until the pinmux DT
>>> bindings are present. Then, the kernel won't care about the board names.
>>
>> Exactly.
>
> That is perfectly acceptable, but you should still have the option to do
> something specific for any given board.

Of course. That's not what we're objecting to here.


-Olof
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/