linux-kernel - Re: 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]

Date:	Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:16:14 -0500
From:	Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>
To:	Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>
Cc:	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	"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>,
	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Domenico Andreoli <cavokz@...il.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>
Subject: Re: DT bindings as ABI [was: Do we have people interested in device
 tree janitoring / cleanup?]

On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 02:11:31PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net> wrote:
>
>> > One problem that needs to be solved is obviously how a binding
>> > graduates from tentative to locked. This work isn't going to be very
>> > interesting to most people, I suspect. Think standards committee type
>> > work.
>>
>> I think a time based stabilization period would be better than a
>> separate directory to apply bindings too. Or time plus periodic review
>> perhaps.
>
> The only problem with a time-based versus separate directory is how do
> users who've downloaded the tree determine which bindings are stable?
> If they pull a tarball, or receive an SDK, there is most likely no git
> history attached.

Well, if time based includes moving the binding out of the kernel,
then that is what defines it as stable or not. I guess that is a form
of a separate directory. I don't think we want to be moving bindings
twice: tentative -> stable and kernel -> DT repo.

The policy could be as simple as an binding without change in at least
N kernel releases is moved out and stable.

Rob
--
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/