linux-kernel - Re: [linux-sunxi] [PATCH 2/3] spidev: Add DT binding example.

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]

Date:	Mon, 27 Apr 2015 19:30:36 +0200
From:	Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:	Michal Suchanek <hramrach@...il.com>,
	Martin Sperl <kernel@...tin.sperl.org>,
	Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
	linux-sunxi <linux-sunxi@...glegroups.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	linux-spi <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-doc <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-sunxi] [PATCH 2/3] spidev: Add DT binding example.

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:16:01AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 02:51:13PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 02:38:18PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> 
> > > >> I don't know if it's been suggested before, certainly nobody did the
> > > >> work to make it happen.  I don't think I have a massive objection in
> > > >> principal.
> 
> > Actually, I did it a year ago, and it looked at the time that it
> > wasn't what should be done either.
> 
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/4/28/612
> 
> lkml.org is being terrible as usual so I can't see half the thread (or
> at least got fed up trying to get it to load)

A part of it is also here:
http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1405.0/00484.html

> but I think the discussion there petered out more than anything
> else.

Maybe it did :)

> Or was it the suggestion to make this something that the driver core
> supported so that we didn't have to open code it for every bus?

Probably. That's something I really haven't took the time to look at,
and don't really plan on doing so.

I guess a good way forward would be to revive this patch, and wait for
that generic way to happen.

What do you think of this?

Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)