linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/11] x86: Add device tree support

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]

Message-ID: <1290983328.32570.184.camel@pasglop>
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 2010 09:28:48 +1100
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sodaville@...utronix.de,
	x86@...nel.org, devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/11] x86: Add device tree support

On Sun, 2010-11-28 at 14:49 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> 
> >(*) That brings a separate topic we shall discuss: A consistent way for
> >versionning the device-tree would be really useful.
> This isn't a problem unless you move nodes or deprecate them, right? Or
> do you think about another reason to versionning the device-tree?.

Move nodes, deprecate them, yes, but also maybe fix bugs/typos etc... 

For most of these, of course, fixup code can figure things out without a
version. The version has a couple of (minor) advantages, such as being
something easier to get into a bug report rather than the whole tree,
for distro who may want to manage a "pool" of these, or maybe a
"generic" way to provide dtb "overrides" ...

Ben.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/