linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 6/8] of: Implement simplified graph binding for single port devices

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140309192143.GB4939@pengutronix.de>
Date:	Sun, 9 Mar 2014 20:21:43 +0100
From:	Philipp Zabel <pza@...gutronix.de>
To:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>
Cc:	Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <m.chehab@...sung.com>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@...sung.com>,
	Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
	Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@....de>,
	Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>,
	Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 6/8] of: Implement simplified graph binding for single
 port devices

On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 06:38:02PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Wed,  5 Mar 2014 10:20:40 +0100, Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de> wrote:
> > For simple devices with only one port, it can be made implicit.
> > The endpoint node can be a direct child of the device node.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>
> 
> Ergh... I think this is too loosely defined. The caller really should be
> explicit about which behaviour it needs. I'll listen to arguments
> though if you can make a strong argument.

I have dropped this patch and the corresponding documentation patch for
now. This simplification is a separate issue from the move and there is
no consensus yet.
Basically the main issue with the port { endpoint { remote-endpoint=... } }
binding is that it is very verbose if you just need a single link.
Instead of removing the port node, we could also remove the endpoint node
and have the remote-endpoint property direcly in the port node.

regards
Philipp
--
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/