linux-kernel - Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] DT bindings as ABI [was: Do we have people interested in device tree janitoring / cleanup?]

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: <20130725193042.GS9858@sirena.org.uk>
Date:	Thu, 25 Jul 2013 20:30:42 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Cc:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"ksummit-2013-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org" 
	<ksummit-2013-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Domenico Andreoli <cavokz@...il.com>,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dave P Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] DT bindings as ABI [was: Do we have
 people interested in device tree janitoring / cleanup?]

On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 11:25:30AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:

> To talk semi-specifics: What about USB PHY tunings for a specific
> board, where each of the three USB ports and their registers have
> slightly different layout? Sure, we can take 10 properties to describe
> each tunable field in each register, but at the end it will just be
> used to craft the contents blindly, so we might just stuff the 32-bit
> register value as a property instead. And in other cases we might
> indeed want to describe each property independently. Determining what
> is appropriate when is one of the most difficult parts of the review
> workflow.

There's also my constant question about why the driver can't just work
out the right value or decide to use the feature autonomously at runtime
- I'd say that the overwhelming proportion of properties I push back on
end up just getting removed and worked out automatically.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)