linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 08/34] media: camss: Unify the clock names

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:   Mon, 16 Jul 2018 08:00:47 -0600
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     Todor Tomov <todor.tomov@...aro.org>
Cc:     Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@...co.com>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@...asonboard.com>,
        Linux Media Mailing List <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/34] media: camss: Unify the clock names

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 2:53 AM Todor Tomov <todor.tomov@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> Thank you for review.
>
> On 11 July 2018 at 19:07, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 04:32:39PM +0300, Todor Tomov wrote:
> >> Unify the clock names - use names closer to the clock
> >> definitions.
> >
> > Why? You can't just change names. You are breaking an ABI.
>
> Main reason is that this change allows more logical names and
> handling in the driver when support for 8996 is added.
> To clarify by example:
> - we used to have "camss_vfe_vfe" in 8916;
> - now we will have "vfe0" in 8916 and "vfe0" and "vfe1" in 8996.
>
> To achieve this I have changed the names to match more closely
> the definitions in the clock driver, which are based on the
> documentation. Yes, I should have done this the first time...
>
> I have used to update the dt and kernel code together. Yes, the
> change breaks the ABI but does this cause difficulties in practice?

That's up to the platform maintainers to decide. As a user of these
boards, yes, it would bother me. However, camera I don't care so much
about.

In any case, the commit message should make this crystal clear and
justify why breaking compatibility is okay.

Rob