linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 01/10] clk: mediatek: Removed unused dpi

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:	Thu, 30 Jul 2015 12:42:44 -0700
From:	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
To:	Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>
CC:	James Liao <jamesjj.liao@...iatek.com>,
	Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
	Mike Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
	srv_heupstream@...iatek.com, Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@...omium.org>,
	Ricky Liang <jcliang@...omium.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Sascha Hauer <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 01/10] clk: mediatek: Removed unused dpi_ck clock from
 MT8173

On 07/30/2015 11:04 AM, Heiko Stübner wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 30. Juli 2015, 10:36:43 schrieb Stephen Boyd:
>
>> Is it being used in DT right now and causing regressions on
>> v4.2-rcX? Sorry, I'm trying to understand why this patch matters
>> for the 4.2 release.
> it's not been used in an actual devicetree file, but as far as I understand it,
> the dt-binding headers themself are also part of the ABI.
>
> And it is new in 4.2, so has not been part of an official release yet.
>
> The reason for the removal from what I understand is that the removed clock is
> not documented at all (it's source, what it does), which got it the "clk_null"
> parent in the first place.
>
>

Right, so my understanding of the DT ABI thing is that newer kernels 
should keep working with older DTs. If there isn't any DT using the 
binding, then we don't have a problem because the only thing that could 
happen would be a newer DT working with an older kernel, which doesn't 
make any sense from a backwards incompatible standpoint.

If you feel strongly that some sort of DT ABI rule would be broken and 
you want to make sure that doesn't happen I guess we can queue this up 
to be sent off to Linus, but if you aren't worried (and I'm obviously 
not worried) then I'd prefer we just queue it up for 4.3.

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

--
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/