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: <4D5F9118-AD50-44F7-B672-2A70E5999CC1@antoniou-consulting.com>
Date:	Tue, 13 Nov 2012 21:11:38 +0200
From:	Pantelis Antoniou <panto@...oniou-consulting.com>
To:	Mitch Bradley <wmb@...mworks.com>
Cc:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>, Matt Porter <mporter@...com>,
	Koen Kooi <koen@...inion.thruhere.net>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>,
	Deepak Saxena <dsaxena@...aro.org>,
	Russ Dill <Russ.Dill@...com>,
	Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.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)

Hi Mitch,

On Nov 13, 2012, at 9:09 PM, Mitch Bradley wrote:

> On 11/13/2012 8:29 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 11/13/2012 11:10 AM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
>>> It seems to me that this capebus discussion is missing an important
>>> point.  The name capebus suggests that it is a bus, so there should be a
>>> parent node to represent that bus.  It should have a driver whose API
>>> implements all of the system-interface functions a cape needs.
>> 
>> It was discussed earlier that capebus isn't actually a bus. It's simply
>> a collection of a bunch of pins from the SoC hooked up to connectors.
>> I'd agree that it's mis-named.
>> 
> 
> Nevertheless, to the extent that the set of pins is finite and
> well-defined, it should be possible to define a set of software
> interfaces to support the functionality represented by those pins.
> 
> It might depend on the underlying SoC, but even so, it would still be
> best to encapsulate the interface set.  I hear all these use cases that
> presuppose a wide variety of user skill sets.  If one really wants to
> support such users well, it's important to define a coherent single
> point of interface.
> 
> 

That's what capebus is. Too bad there's such a fuss about the name.
Check out the thread from the start for the sordid details.

Regards

-- Pantelis

--
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/