linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ARM: /proc/atags: Export also for DT

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: <20150128161913.GU1569@arm.com>
Date:	Wed, 28 Jan 2015 16:19:13 +0000
From:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>,
	Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>,
	Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>,
	Ivaylo Dimitrov <ivo.g.dimitrov.75@...il.com>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	Sebastian Reichel <sre@...ian.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: /proc/atags: Export also for DT

On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 04:13:17PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 09:57:18AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > I'm fine with that, but we just need to have a standard kernel
> > userspace interface in addition to something like
> > /proc/device-tree/bootreason. Perhaps this can be the default
> > implementation for the watchdog dev. Someday when we decide DT is crap
> > and have a new boot interface, we'll have people relying on
> > /proc/device-tree. I hope to be retired when that happens...
> 
> Anyone who thinks that DT can be replaced in the same way that we made
> the mistake with ATAGs would really need their head examined.
> 
> As you point out, removing DT removes the /proc/device-tree/ sub-tree.
> Whether we like it or not, that is a userspace API, one which we have
> users of already.  That pretty much means that we can't remove DT for
> existing platforms or any platform we have now converted to DT.

<ok, I'll go there!>

... and for platforms that can also be booted via ACPI? If we have to
convert the ACPI tables into a device-tree purely for /proc/device-tree,
then we may as well boot with the thing too :)

Seriously though, I don't see how we can maintain this directory for
ACPI, regardless of whether or not it's ABI.

Will
--
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/