linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: dts: am57xx-beagle-x15: Add support for rev B1

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, 2 Sep 2016 08:52:10 -0500
From:   Robert Nelson <robertcnelson@...il.com>
To:     Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>
Cc:     Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>, Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
        Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>,
        Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
        "linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jason Kridner <jkridner@...gleboard.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: dts: am57xx-beagle-x15: Add support for rev B1

On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com> wrote:
> + Robert Nelson
>
> On Friday 02 September 2016 02:36 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>
> I understand that there are existing users of A2 boards and so we simply
> cannot remove support for those boards (at least yet).
>
> But given the small numbers of A2 boards, its also quite likely that we
> will not have enough test coverage for those boards. Especially as years
> pass and there are fewer and fewer people with access to working A2 boards.

I have a A1, A2 and a B1, that i use for testing for
beagleboard.org...  The A1 use to be ssh-accessible for developers,
but since moving to my new house, I haven't "yet" got that one setup
for developers.  Right now i'm using the A2 & B1 for development of
our default images.

Jason Kridner also has a number of boards

> Given that, aren't we increasing the chance of A2 breakage by creating a
> common file - this essentially necessitates that any change to
> am57xx-beagle-x15-common.dtsi is also tested on A2.
>
> Instead, it seems to be easier for maintenance and safer overall if the
> older version has a file of its own which can be kept alone.
>
> Also, how about renaming the existing dts to am57xx-beagle-x15-reva2.dts
> and let the production version be called am57xx-beagle-x15.dts? Surely
> this will cause some inconvenience to A2 users. But there are few users
> of those and it might be more intuitive for the majority users if the
> file for production version is without a specific version string
> attached. Just a thought though, not sure about it myself either.

Nak, let's NOT do that to A2 users.

The am57xx-beagle-x15.dts went mainline in v3.19, u-boot installed on
devices would need to be updated and this would make bisecting a pain.
;)

Side note:

A1/A2 boards (most i believe) did not have the eeprom programmed with an ID.

Where as B1's have a default eeprom for identification:

https://github.com/RobertCNelson/boot-scripts/blob/master/device/x15/X15_B1-eeprom.dump

Regards,

-- 
Robert Nelson
https://rcn-ee.com/