linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Device Tree Overlays Proposal (Was Re: capebus moving omap

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: <CACxGe6vTJHvZwZ383DE5-k+ksv1nGeuLynADuQC+D2eySj7gWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 9 Nov 2012 17:02:05 +0000
From:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
To:	Mitch Bradley <wmb@...mworks.com>
Cc:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>, Matt Porter <mporter@...com>,
	Koen Kooi <koen@...inion.thruhere.net>,
	Pantelis Antoniou <panto@...oniou-consulting.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>,
	Deepak Saxena <dsaxena@...aro.org>,
	Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>,
	Russ Dill <Russ.Dill@...com>, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Device Tree Overlays Proposal (Was Re: capebus moving
 omap_devices to mach-omap2)

On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 12:54 AM, Mitch Bradley <wmb@...mworks.com> wrote:
> On 11/6/2012 12:37 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> This proposal is very oriented at an overlay-based approach. I'm not
>> totally convinced that a pure overlay approach (as in how dtc does
>> overlayed DT nodes) will be flexible enough, but would love to be
>> persuaded. Again see below.
>
>
> An overlay approach will not be powerful enough to solve the sorts of
> problems that occur when a product goes into full production, becomes a
> family, and starts to evolve.  Issues like second-source parts that
> aren't quite compatible and need to be detected and reported,
> board-stuff options for different customer profiles, speed grades of
> parts that aren't properly probeable but instead need to be identified
> by some subterfuge, the list of tedious issues goes on and on.
>
> It's nice to pretend that the world fits into a few coherent simple
> use cases, but 30 years of experience shipping computer product families
> proves otherwise.  You need a programming language to solve the full
> set of problems - which I why the device tree is designed so it can
> be generated and modified by a program.

I'm not going to argue with that. There is nothing saying that the
overlay wouldn't be generated or applied by a script. However, I do
strongly think that the data model needs to be independent of any tool
or execution environment used to manipulate it. I certainly am not
interested in encoding scripts or bytecode into the tree - the
opposite of the approach used by ACPI which must execute AML to even
retrieve the device tree. I like the overlay approach because it is
conceptually straightforward and provides a working model of how
changes could be made from userspace while still being usable by
firmware.

An alternate approach from userspace would be to use a live virtual
filesystem to manipulate the device tree, though that approach only
applies to Linux userspace. Firmware would still need its own
approach.

g.
--
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/