linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] of: overlays: New target methods

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 27 May 2016 13:35:28 -0700
From:	Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
To:	Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@...sulko.com>
CC:	Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>,
	Matt Porter <mporter@...sulko.com>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	Koen Kooi <koen@...inion.thruhere.net>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
	Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>,
	Devicetree List <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6]  of: overlays: New target methods

On 5/27/2016 7:46 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> Hi Frank,
> 
>> On May 27, 2016, at 00:15 , Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 5/16/2016 1:18 PM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>>> This patchset implements two new target methods.
>>>
>>> A target index method which allows selecting different
>>> targets according to an argument using an extended API and
>>> a target root method that fences the target only
>>> to a specific given root.
>>>
>>> Documentation and unit-tests are included.
>>
>> I think you are attacking the problem the wrong way.
>>
>> If I understand correctly, the problem statement is:
>>
>>  In some cases, a devicetree overlay is meant to describe
>>  a pluggable piece of hardware, which may be plugged into
>>  various locations on a platform.  It should be possible
>>  to apply a single devicetree to one or more locations
>>  on a given platform.
>>
>> If that is the case, then putting the locations where the
>> overlay can be applied into the devicetree is not the
>> approach that I would use.  It seems it would be better
>> to specify the target location as a separate item from
>> the overlay to the method that applies the devicetree.
>> In that case, I would put the node(s) describing the
>> pluggable hardware in the root node of the overlay
>> devicetree (dtc expects a root node).  The apply
>> method can easily find the node(s) and relocate them
>> to the appropriate location in the platform's
>> devicetree.
>>
> 
> It’s a bit more complicated. This was considered initially
> but we ended up with the targets on the overlay.
> 
> It can work either way, but the problem with storing the
> indirect targets in the base tree is that there is no
> change in the bindings of the targets.

I am not suggesting putting the targets in the base tree.

I do not know where it should be.  Still thinking about
that part.

> 
> Putting things in the overlay seemed like it would have
> no effect on the base tree whatsoever.
> 
> 
>> -Frank
>>
> 
> Regards
> 
> — Pantelis
> 
>