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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2512315.QAADqjoYKs@diego>
Date:	Thu, 30 Jul 2015 22:07:55 +0200
From:	Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>
To:	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
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

Am Donnerstag, 30. Juli 2015, 12:42:44 schrieb Stephen Boyd:
> 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.

I don't feel strongly, it was only based on what I remember about all the dt-
ABI talk :-) . Aka if you're ok with it simply going into 4.3 that should be 
ok too from my pov.
--
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/