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  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:	Tue, 07 Oct 2014 09:59:29 -0700
From:	David Daney <ddaney.cavm@...il.com>
To:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	adi-buildroot-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	lguest@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, linux-am33-list@...hat.com,
	linux-cris-kernel@...s.com, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-hexagon@...r.kernel.org, linux-m32r-ja@...linux-m32r.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org,
	openipmi-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-c6x-dev@...ux-c6x.org,
	linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org,
	linux-metag@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
	linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/44] mfd: as3722: Drop reference to pm_power_off from
 devicetree bindings

On 10/07/2014 09:31 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 11:21:11AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
>> On 10/07/14 00:28, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> Devicetree bindings are supposed to be operating system independent
>>> and should thus not describe how a specific functionality is implemented
>>> in Linux.
>>
>> So your argument is that linux/Documentation/devicetree/bindings should
>> not be specific to Linux. Merely hosted in the Linux kernel source
>> repository.
>>
>> Well that's certainly a point of view.
>>
> Not specifically my argument, really, and nothing new either. But, yes, I do
> think that devicetree bindings descriptions should not include implementation
> details, especially since those may change over time (as is the case here).
>

I fully agree.

Many device trees come from outside the kernel (i.e. they are supplied 
by the system boot environment).  Obviously these device trees cannot be 
changed at the whim of kernel developers, *and* it is perfectly 
reasonable to think that software other than the Linux kernel will run 
on this type of system too.

So yes, it is really true, device trees are not a Linux kernel private 
implementation detail, they are really an external ABI that, although 
documented in the kernel source tree, cannot be changed in incompatible 
ways as time progresses.

David Daney



--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists