linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the i2c-embedded tree

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:	Tue, 17 Jul 2012 14:30:01 +0100
From:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
CC:	Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alessandro Rubini <rubini@...dd.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Deepak Saxena <dsaxena@...aro.org>,
	devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the i2c-embedded
 tree

On 17/07/12 14:06, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 12:31:08PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
>
>> I agree with what you say to some extent, but I believe that it is
>> more important to have a working solution now than to ensure that
>> each bindings are as unique as possible. After any suggestion of
>> consolidation, a move from vendor specific to generically defined
>> Device Tree bindings is trivial. Especially in the current stage
>> where adaptions and definitions are still fluid.
>
>> Obviously some care is taken to ensure the bindings are as generic
>> as possible, but not to the extent that will put the project back
>> some months. Over past few months I have enabled many sub-systems;
>
> It's not just about having generic bindings, it's also about having
> bindings which have some abstraction and hope of reusability. An awful
> lot of bindings are just straight dumps of Linux data structures into
> the device tree which don't make a terribly great deal of sense as
> bindings.

The Device Tree should supply any platform configuration which the 
driver needs in order to correctly setup for a particular machine. This 
is exactly what the platform_data structure did before, hence is is 
reasonable to assume that whatever information resides in that structure 
would be required in the Device Tree.

>> however, I think it would have been a fraction of that if we'd gone
>> through the laborious process of immediate forced consolidation. I
>> think it's fine to have platform/vendor specific bindings that work,
>> then come back to unify them once the dust settles.
>
> In many of these cases we'd be better off just not putting things into
> the device tree in the first place, leaving things at the basic "is the
> device there" stuff.

Then what do you do with the platform data?

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead
M: +44 77 88 633 515
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog


--
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/