linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v2 11/14] Documentation: dt: binding: omap: am43x timer

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, 3 Jun 2013 07:49:28 +0000
From:	"Mohammed, Afzal" <afzal@...com>
To:	"Cousson, Benoit" <b-cousson@...com>
CC:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Jon Hunter <jgchunter@...il.com>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
	"devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org" 
	<devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	"Grant Likely" <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Benoit Cousson <benoit.cousson@...aro.org>,
	"linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 11/14] Documentation: dt: binding: omap: am43x timer

Hi Benoit,

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 19:05:35, Cousson, Benoit wrote:

> And in this case, you do not introduce any new revision.
> 
> There is no point to update the binding each time we add a new SoC
> variant that will contain the exact same IP.
> 
> I think it will mainly confuse the user that will wonder what is
> different in that version compare to the previous one, moreover we can
> end up with hundred of entries for the exact same IP for nothing.
> 
> The real problem is due to the introduction of the SoC name in the
> device compatible name. That does introduced a SoC level information
> that is mostly irrelevant at device level. I can understand why it was
> done for practical aspect when the IP version is not well identified,
> but that can lead to this proliferation of new pointless bindings.

As opinions on $subject seems not yet to be conclusive, I plan to
rebase DTS patch (14/14) over your 'for_3.11/dts' branch (that makes
use of C preprocessor on OMAP DTS) and post separately dropping
11-14 patches, is that okay ?

Regards
Afzal