linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] devicetree - document using aliases to set spi bus number.

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:	Wed, 25 May 2016 12:49:32 -0500
From:	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:	Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
Cc:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Christer Weinigel <christer@...nigel.se>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] devicetree - document using aliases to set spi bus
 number.

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 04:34:50PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 5/24/2016 11:32 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 08:03:48PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
> >> On 05/24/2016 07:20 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > 
> >>> I'm not sure this is something we want to support at all, I can't 
> >>> immediately see anything that does this deliberately in the SPI
> >>> code and obviously the "bus number" is something of a Linux
> >>> specific concept which would need some explanation if we were going
> >>> to document it.  It's something I'm struggling a bit to see a
> >>> robust use case for that isn't better served by parsing sysfs,
> >>> what's the goal here?
> > 
> >> If this isn't something that should be in the Documentation/devicetree
> >>  because it's not generig enough, where should Linux-specific
> >> interpretations such as this be documented?
> > 
> > I'm not clear that we want to document this at all since I am not clear
> > that there is a sensible use case for doing it.  I did ask for one but
> > you've not articulated one in this reply.  I am much less gung ho than
> > Grant on this one, even as a Linux specific interface it seems very
> > legacy.

No, we don't.

> > 
> 
> The time for the use case was when the patch was accepted.

Ideally, yes, but things getting missed in review or later deciding 
things were a bad idea can always be debated again.

> It is in the kernel, it is appropriate to document it.

Things get undocumented all the time when we deprecate them.

Rob