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]

Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2013 12:27:46 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Cc:	Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
	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>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Domenico Andreoli <cavokz@...il.com>,
	"rob.herring@...xeda.com" <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 Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 07:37:48PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 11:40:18AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

> > We did have exactly the same discussion when the DT transition was
> > started - this isn't something that people only just realised might be
> > an issue.  There was a deliberate decision to focus on getting the
> > technology deployed to the point where it could be used as a straight
> > replacement for board files and accept that sometimes the results won't
> > be perfect and that we may need to rework as a result.

> Can you tell a bit more about this decision? When was it made? Who
> made it? How was it made public?

I honestly can't remember exactly - it was part of the discussion about
keeping the .dtb files in the kernel IIRC.  Given the timing and the
fact that I remember it it'd have been a mailing list discussion but I
couldn't point you at it without searching for a needle in a haystack,
sorry.  Perhaps there's a LWN writeup or something.

It's not the "we don't care" that you're seeing, it's more a product of
"we're not sure what we're doing yet, let's give ourselves a pass if we
mess things up while we're still learning" so it's probably buried in
some thread.

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