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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Tue, 07 Oct 2014 12:10:58 -0500
From:	Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>
To:	David Daney <ddaney.cavm@...il.com>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.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 10/07/14 11:59, David Daney wrote:
> 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.

Ah. Existing thing with backstory among the in-crowd, so I'll assume
"git subtree" was previously suggested and you had that discussion
already and decided against it.

Carry on,

Rob
--
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