linux-kernel - Re: portable device tree connector -- problem statement

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:	Tue, 5 Jul 2016 21:04:40 +0300
From:	Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@...sulko.com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:	Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>,
	Stephen Boyd <stephen.boyd@...aro.org>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Matt Porter <mporter@...sulko.com>,
	Koen Kooi <koen@...inion.thruhere.net>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
	Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>, Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
	devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: portable device tree connector -- problem statement

Hi Mark,

> On Jul 5, 2016, at 11:31 , Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 01:58:53PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> 
>> On the other hand, I have no previous detailed knowledge of the beagle
>> family.
> 
> This is in no way specific to the BeagleBones, there's plenty of other
> boards out there with similar setups like the Raspberry Pi and its
> derivatives.  
> 

There are a lot of custom vendor boards that use it.
We need to handle custom board too.

>>    - for bones with the same pinout:
>>      - the pins are routed to different function blocks on the
>>        SOC because different bones may have different SOCs?
>>        - the different functional blocks are compatible or not?
> 
> This is the general case, there will be a substantial level of
> compatibility between different base boards by virtue of the pinouts
> being the same but obviously there will be some variation in the
> specifics (and even where that exists it may not be enough to be visible
> at the DT level for the most part).  That said there will doubtless be
> some plug in modules that want to rely on the specifics of a given base
> board rather than remain compatible with general users of the interface.

Even for plug in modules that need a specific board it is typical that new
SoCs/boards appear in the future that are backwards compatible.

Regards

— Pantelis