linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2 3/3] Documentation: DT bindings: Tegra AHB: note base address change

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: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1503191845060.9480@utopia.booyaka.com>
Date:	Thu, 19 Mar 2015 18:46:59 +0000 (UTC)
From:	Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>
To:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
cc:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
	Paul Walmsley <pwalmsley@...dia.com>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Hiroshi DOYU <hdoyu@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 3/3] Documentation: DT bindings: Tegra AHB: note base
 address change

On Thu, 19 Mar 2015, Stephen Warren wrote:

> We should not document Linux 4.1 as the cut-off. DT bindings are supposed to
> be OS agnostic. While it's practically unlikely, it is entirely possible for
> some other OS to have already implemented support for this binding, and the
> current binding is an ABI. We have no control over if/when any non-Linux code
> is updated to add support for a 0-based offset for existing SoCs, and
> certainly no versions of Linux or any other OS can be updated retro-actively
> except perhaps a few linux-stable versions. We can however write the binding
> in such a way as support for new SoCs requires the new 0-based address, since
> there is no binding specification for those new chips yet, and the time when
> you add the new binding documentation is the first time any OS could possibly
> add conformant support for it.
> 
> In summary, I believe the binding document must state that T20/30/114/124
> require the offset of 4 in reg value, and newer chips require no offset in the
> reg value. We can still always accept either in the Linux kernel going forward
> based on the principle of being lenient re: input data.

That's fine.  I'll send a patch for that.


- Paul
--
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/