linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: Differentiate SheevaPlugs and DockStars on the basis of the memory size.

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20110408072420.GA27450@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Fri, 8 Apr 2011 08:24:20 +0100
From:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To:	Alexander Holler <holler@...oftware.de>
Cc:	Alexander Clouter <alex@...riz.org.uk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: Differentiate SheevaPlugs and DockStars on the
	basis of the memory size.

On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 01:04:01AM +0200, Alexander Holler wrote:
> Am 08.04.2011 00:08, schrieb Russell King - ARM Linux:
>
>>> Requiring a machine ID and the needed stuff to handle that for a board
>>> which just is using two GPIOs different than another board is why the
>>> ARM tree exploded.
>>
>> You can not be any more wrong than that.
>>
>> The reason the ARM tree exploded is because of the compartmentalized
>> sub-community structure, where the vast majority of (eg) OMAP development
>> is done independently of the (eg) Samsung development.
>>
>> Consequently, there's no attempt to consolidate code between the SoCs,
>> even for basic stuff like 32-bit up-counting timers.  We've ended up with
>> _nine_ implementations of clocksources all doing the same thing in that
>> respect.
>>
>> That's got precisely zilch to do with machine IDs, and your attempt to
>> blame the bloat on machine IDs just shows how misinformed you are.
>
> I had a look at what's going on in the OMAP linux world for more than a  
> year now and I think I've seen a lot of the stuff you are referring to.
>
> And I think one of the reasons that the mess happened is the same I've  
> got trapped in. Why should anyone try to submit patches if he must fear  
> to get caught in some senseless endless discussion about one line.

Because matching against the memory size is _technically_ the wrong thing
to do, as you've already been told.
--
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/