linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: dts: mvebu: split SolidRun CuBox into variants

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: <538508A5.2010809@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 27 May 2014 23:50:29 +0200
From:	Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>
To:	Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>
CC:	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
	Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: dts: mvebu: split SolidRun CuBox into variants

On 05/27/2014 11:35 PM, Jason Cooper wrote:
> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 07:28:09PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
>> On 05/27/2014 06:11 PM, Jason Cooper wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 11:33:29PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
>>>> As Mainlining effort for SolidRun CuBox has been carried out on the
>>>> Engineering Sample, the board DTS was reflecting this. Actually,
>>>> SolidRun CuBox comes in three different variants: Engineering Sample (ES),
>>>> production with 1GB RAM (1G), and production with 2GB RAM (2G).
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, we split the current dove-cubox.dts into a common board include
>>>> and one board dts for each of the above variants.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>
>>>> ---
>> [...]
>>>> ---
>>>>  arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile                         |  4 +++-
>>>>  arch/arm/boot/dts/dove-cubox-1g.dts                | 17 ++++++++++++++++
>>>>  arch/arm/boot/dts/dove-cubox-2g.dts                | 17 ++++++++++++++++
>>>>  arch/arm/boot/dts/dove-cubox-es.dts                | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>  .../boot/dts/{dove-cubox.dts => dove-cubox.dtsi}   | 17 ----------------
>>>>  5 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>>>  create mode 100644 arch/arm/boot/dts/dove-cubox-1g.dts
>>>>  create mode 100644 arch/arm/boot/dts/dove-cubox-2g.dts
>>>>  create mode 100644 arch/arm/boot/dts/dove-cubox-es.dts
>>>>  rename arch/arm/boot/dts/{dove-cubox.dts => dove-cubox.dtsi} (86%)
>>>>
>> [...]
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/dove-cubox-2g.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/dove-cubox-2g.dts
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 000000000000..513b6a68eba3
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/dove-cubox-2g.dts
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
>>>> +/dts-v1/;
>>>> +
>>>> +#include "dove-cubox.dtsi"
>>>> +
>>>> +/ {
>>>> +	model = "SolidRun CuBox (2G)";
>>>> +	compatible = "solidrun,cubox-2g", "solidrun,cubox", "marvell,dove";
>>>> +
>>>> +	memory {
>>>> +		device_type = "memory";
>>>> +		reg = <0x00000000 0x80000000>;
>>>
>>> Do you anticipate any other differences between the 1G and the 2G?
>>> Otherwise, I'm inclined to just have a "solidrun,cubox".  The bootloader
>>> should be setting the amount of RAM at boottime anyway.
>>
>> Given the minor differences between ES and production, instead of
>>
>> dove-cubox-common.dtsi
>> +--> dove-cubox.dts (production)
>> +--> dove-cubos-es.dts (engineering sample)
>>
>> we could also just have an "overlay" for the ES like
>>
>> dove-cubox.dts (production)
>> +--> dove-cubox-es.dts (engineering sample)
>>
>> It is not used commonly until now, maybe just a matter of taste.
>>
>> Is there any version you prefer?
> 
> iiuc, overlays were intended for daughterboard (capes, etc) specific

Oh, ok. I guess "overlay" was misleading here. I did not mean dynamic
loading/unloading of dtb but including a dts from another dts.

> info.  It may be useful here, but I'd like to hear from the DT
> maintainers how they want it used.  eg: most popular first, like you
> have it, or oldest first
> 
> dove-cubox-es.dts
> +--> dove-cubox.dts

In the cubox case, this is not possible. ES has a misrouted
card-detection for sdhci, this requires an additional property.
There is no way to remove a property once it is written down in
any of the files included. But you know about that already.

> There's also what to do with the older files using #include...
> 
> In short, I'd prefer to stick to the old method until we have a good
> reason to move to overlays and a recommended way to execute that.*

Ok, the old method is straight forward and I keep that in mind. I'll
send a v2 of this using the approach we just talked about to eliminate
any misinterpretations. Just have a look and feel free to request an
"old-method" v3 immediately :P

Sebastian

--
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/