linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Move device tree graph parsing helpers to drivers/of

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: <5322F99D.5010009@ti.com>
Date:	Fri, 14 Mar 2014 14:44:13 +0200
From:	Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>
To:	Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
	Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>
CC:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <m.chehab@...sung.com>,
	Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@....de>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
	<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Move device tree graph parsing helpers to drivers/of

Hi Philipp, Grant,

On 14/03/14 14:19, Philipp Zabel wrote:

>>> People completely disagree about the direction the phandle links should
>>> point in. I am still of the opinion that the generic binding should describe
>>> just the topology, that the endpoint links in the kernel should represent an
>>> undirected graph and the direction of links should not matter at all for the
>>> generic graph bindings.
>>
>> I would also not mandate a specific direction at the of-graph level and leave 
>> it to subsystems (or possibly drivers) to specify the direction.
> 
> Thank you. Can everybody live with this?

Yes, I'd like to reserve the possibility for double-linking. If the
endpoint links are used to tell the dataflow direction, then
double-linking could be used for bi-directional dataflows.

But this doesn't help much for the video drivers under work, which I
think we are all most interested in at the moment. We still need to
decide how we link the endpoint for those.

I'd like to go forward with the mainline v4l2 style double-linking, as
that is already in use. It would allow us to proceed _now_, and maybe
even get display support to 3.15. Otherwise this all gets delayed for
who knows how long, and the displays in question cannot be used by the
users.

Deprecating the other link later from the existing video bindings would
be trivial, as there would basically be nothing to do except remove the
other link.

 Tomi

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (902 bytes)