linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] at91: platform data for atmel-mci (for 3.5)

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:	Mon, 18 Jun 2012 06:49:49 -0700
From:	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
To:	Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>
Cc:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@...el.com>,
	Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] at91: platform data for atmel-mci (for 3.5)

Hi,

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com> wrote:
> On 06/04/2012 05:48 PM, Nicolas Ferre :
>> On 05/31/2012 11:04 PM, Olof Johansson :
>>> Hi Nicolas,
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com
>>> <mailto:nicolas.ferre@...el.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     On 05/24/2012 05:12 PM, Nicolas Ferre :
>>>     > Hi Arnd, hi Olof,
>>>
>>>     Ping?
>>>
>>>     (or maybe you will have a look at this after the merge window...)
>>>
>>>
>>> So, I looked at this branch yesterday but I wasn't entirely happy with
>>> the number of ifdefs it adds.
>>
>> Unfortunately, this is the usual shape of any devices/boards files on
>> AT91. This amount will be reduced when we remove the old driver and when
>> we move newer/popular devices to Device Tree...
>>
>>> If the idea is to deprecate the old driver, wouldn't it make more sense
>>> to just cut everyone over instead of having both sets of setup in the
>>> kernel?
>>
>> Well, the old driver has existed since a very long time and I think that
>> people are used to it on oldest platforms. This is why we put in place a
>> overlapping period. This way we hope that the transition will be smoother.
>> On the other hand, the old code will be removed in 3.7 so the
>> overlapping period will not be so long.
>> I hope that it will allow people to track bugs if some are remaining and
>> switch to newer driver easily.
>
> Olof, Arnd,
>
> So, do you have made up your mind about this pull request?

Sorry for the delays in handling this, I should have been quicker at replying.

That said, the driver is staged for removal in 3.7, and this patch is
3.6 material at this time. But I think it makes sense to cut every
in-tree board over completely one release before the driver is
removed, and thus not keep the old platform data around for them.

That way the out-of-tree users still have a one-release grace period,
but everyone with an in-tree board (and the reference platforms) will
move over sooner. I think I would prefer that over having all these
ifdefs in the tree, even if it's just for one release.

I could be convinced otherwise if there's a good reason though. Either
way, 3.6 is the way to go.

-Olof
--
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/