linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] at91: cleanup for 3.16 #1

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAOesGMjLqurfyGPuF_nhtg+MY+_NGLs_A318JQ=zBQJ1cM0NYA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 19 May 2014 21:32:44 -0700
From:	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
To:	Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>
Cc:	Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	"arm@...nel.org" <arm@...nel.org>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
	Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
	LinusW <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@...el.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] at91: cleanup for 3.16 #1

[Really adding Mark]

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net> wrote:
> [adding Mark]
>
> On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 06:22:16AM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
>> On 16/05/2014 at 16:26:35 -0700, Olof Johansson wrote :
>> > On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 07:39:35PM +0200, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
>> > > There is a little conflict with at91-3.16-dt that you already pulled in
>> > > arm-soc: here is the branch that resolves it:
>> > >
>> > > https://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91/commits/at91-3.16-resolved
>> >
>> > That resolution looks odd. Why is one clock under clocks { } and two of them
>> > are at the top level? Shouldn't they all be under the clocks subnode?
>> >
>> > I've merged in now with your resolution, but I think this needs revisiting.
>> >
>>
>> Actually, all the clocks should end up at the root, please refer to:
>> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-March/240219.html
>>
>> I feel that was one of the topics we should have discussed at ELC but we
>> ended up talking about DT ABI stability instead...
>
> I'm looking more for consistency than anything else. Having a few in the
> root and the few in a subnode certainly indicates that something's wrong.
>
> It's a good thing that we have several DT maintainers to spread the load,
> but it's also harder to learn the preferences of the maintainer(s) since
> there seems to be variety (some care more about some things than others).
>
> I'm not saying that Mark is wrong, but it's quite possible that someone
> else would disagree or not care enough to point it out. The current
> practice of having clocks under a subnode is prevalent almost everywhere
> in the tree, and this is a mostly new direction set by Mark. It makes
> it very hard to figure out what's the best way to do things when there's
> less consistency.
>
> Clearly, having clocks grouped in a subnode is common practice already, and
> makes some sense from a readability point of view.
>
> Anyway, I'll leave the rest for some DT maintainer to sort out. Please
> follow up with patches to switch over to one or the other model no matter
> what, please.
>
>
> -Olof
--
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/