linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH 1/2] pinctrl: change function behavior for per pin muxing controllers

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:	Mon, 13 Jul 2015 14:07:45 +0200
From:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:	Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>
Cc:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@...el.com>,
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 1/2] pinctrl: change function behavior for per pin
 muxing controllers

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com> wrote:

> - no agreement on 3 points:
> 1/ ways to use groups in generic pinctrl
> 2/ ways to describe a comprehensive configuration in device tree
> 3/ readability of a sysfs information
>
> - no way out on the generic pinctrl little changes that Ludovic proposed
> as Linus W. never gave his point of view (RFC posts on April the 2nd).

Yeah I know. I am battling with this, it is one of those topics
where you feel "eeeehhhh" and try to avoid looking at it. Sadly
I have to...

I refer to Documentation/ManagementStyle, chapter 1,
"Decisions".

What makes me feel uneasy about these things is that the decisions
are irreversible due to the nature of the device tree bindings.

I am not a manager, but a maintainer...

> Ludovic explained at length our point of view and gave detailed
> technical arguments. We don't intend to convince you, we just would like
> the harmless modifications to be integrated.

So is it universally agreed that the changes are harmless?

If they are harmless, I would be able to revert the patch and
nothing breaks in the world, I don't think that is the case. The
case is a piece of code and functionality that is not AT91-specific
but has to be maintained in the core pinctrl code forever.

That is basically the big problem with anything device tree.
It etches stuff in stone so it can't be changed, like ever.
Further, the decision on whether to etch this or that is
pushed to Linux subsystem maintainers, who are clearly
unsuited for the task. :(

> As we preferred to give a chance to the generic pinconf/pinctrl for our
> use by adding a little bit of flexibility, we are now in a situation
> where we are nearly obliged to give up this approach and write a new
> driver without the use of the generic facilities: what a pity!
> We lost several months of useless work to match what we thought the
> maintainer would prefer.
>
> So Linus, do you confirm that we won't go further with this approach?
>
> We are pretty disappointed by the way this interaction with the pinctrl
> sub-system went.

I'm sorry, I am just trying to wait for consensus but it seems to
be hard for that to happen.

Things I need:

- More DT bindings people to look at this patch.

- More other driver maintainers to look at this patch.
  Sacha is one of those I'd like to get an opinion from
  for example. ACKs, Reviewed-by's are always good.

Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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/