linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8] ARM: sun8i: a33: Mali improvements

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, 17 Feb 2017 16:43:41 +0100
From:   Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
To:     Tobias Jakobi <tjakobi@...h.uni-bielefeld.de>
Cc:     ML dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, wens@...e.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] ARM: sun8i: a33: Mali improvements

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 01:45:44PM +0100, Tobias Jakobi wrote:
> Hello Maxime,
> 
> Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 01:43:06PM +0100, Tobias Jakobi wrote:
> >> I was wondering about the following. Wasn't there some strict
> >> requirement about code going upstream, which also included that there
> >> was a full open-source driver stack for it?
> >>
> >> I don't see how this is the case for Mali, neither in the kernel, nor in
> >> userspace. I'm aware that the Mali kernel driver is open-source. But it
> >> is not upstream, maintained out of tree, and won't land upstream in its
> >> current form (no resemblence to a DRM driver at all). And let's not talk
> >> about the userspace part.
> >>
> >> So, why should this be here?
> > 
> > The device tree is a representation of the hardware itself. The state
> > of the driver support doesn't change the hardware you're running on,
> > just like your BIOS/UEFI on x86 won't change the device it reports to
> > Linux based on whether it has a driver for it.
>
> Like Emil already said, the new bindings and the DT entries are solely
> introduced to support a proprietary out-of-tree module.

No. This new binding and the DT entries are solely introduced to
describe a device found in a number of SoCs, just like any other DT
binding we have.

> The current workflow when introducing new DT entries is the following:
> - upstream a driver that uses the entries
> - THEN add the new entries

And that's never been the preferred workflow, for *any* patches.

Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (802 bytes)