linux-kernel - Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/3] tty slave device support

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: <554B7716.3080504@hurleysoftware.com>
Date:	Thu, 07 May 2015 10:30:46 -0400
From:	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
To:	"Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@...delico.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
CC:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	List for communicating with real GTA04 owners 
	<gta04-owner@...delico.com>, NeilBrown <neil@...wn.name>,
	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>,
	"grant.likely@...aro.org" <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/3] tty slave device support - version
 3.

On 05/07/2015 08:46 AM, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
> Am 06.05.2015 um 19:18 schrieb Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>:
>> On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 05:09:20PM +0100, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
>>> Am 06.05.2015 um 16:15 schrieb Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, I am not playing devil’s advocate (which would imply that I am doing this
>>>>>>>>> for fun to tease the dog), but I feel I have to be the advocate of future board
>>>>>>>>> designers who want to easily import an existing board DT and overwrite device
>>>>>>>>> tree nodes to describe design changes, i.e. what slave device is connected to
>>>>>>>>> which uart.
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>>> If this happens, you can move the slave device into a fragment that you
>>>>>> can include under the correct node. That's trivial.
>>>>>
>>>>> But less readable. And that is important as well.
>>>>
>>>> I disagree. The manipulation you have to perform to override properties
>>>> is at least as bad as including a file.
>>>
>>> What about:
>>>
>>> #include "omap3-beagle-xm.dts"
>>>
>>> / {
>>> 	/* HS USB Port 2 Power enable was inverted with the xM C */
>>> 	hsusb2_power: hsusb2_power_reg {
>>> 		enable-active-high;
>>> 	};
>>> };
>>>
>>> compared to 
>>>
>>> #include “board1.dts”
>>>
>>> / {
>>> 	/* slave was reconnected to uart4 */
>>> 	slave {
>>> 		uart = <&uart4>;
>>> 	};
>>> };
>>
>> As I mentioned, you can easily carve up your DTS to make that work with
>> includes if you really must:
>>
>> /* UART0 board variant */
>> #include "board.dtsi"
>> &uart0 {
>> 	#include "some-uart-slave.dtsi"
>> };
>>
>> /* UART1 board variant */
>> #include "board.dtsi"
>> &uart1 {
>> 	#include "some-uart-slave.dtsi"
>> };
>>
>> If you happen to find includes ugly then you can say it's ugly, but it's
>> functionally equivalent, and also means you can avoid having
>> disabled/partial nodes all over the place.
> 
> Functionally equivalent would also be to copy the whole source file and
> s/&uart0/&uart1/.
> 
> But this is not the best solution for the DT programmer since there is no
> automatic *reuse* of common parts.
> 
> And your proposal requires 3 source files instead of 2 which deteriorates
> readibility and understanding what is really going on. And if you need to
> change the some-uart-slave, you have to touch a different file than for
> changing some other slave.
> 
> Yes, it works, but IMHO other factors for a good design are also important.
> 
> Maybe our main difference in PoV is that I specifically want to avoid that
> we force future DT programmers into “ugly” solutions (even if they work).
> 
> If you think that DT programmers have to live with what they are
> given and do the best with it, we can end the discussion.

The question of syntax is orthogonal to the discussion of the proper
devicetree representation.

The awkwardness of expressing variants has nothing to do with the
appropriate device hierarchy (or whether there should be a hierarchy).
Describing variants is just as awkward when the parent-child relationship
is indisputable.

There was a recent discussion on devicetree ML regarding how best to
express and represent variance. Feel free to revive that discussion.

Regards,
Peter Hurley
--
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/