linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] Documentation: dt: keystone: provide SoC specific compatible flags

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:	Fri, 25 Sep 2015 12:38:39 -0500
From:	Nishanth Menon <menon.nishanth@...il.com>
To:	santosh shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...cle.com>,
	Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
	Murali Karicheri <m-karicheri2@...com>,
	Santosh Shilimkar <ssantosh@...nel.org>
CC:	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Documentation: dt: keystone: provide SoC specific
 compatible flags

On 09/25/2015 11:15 AM, santosh shilimkar wrote:
> 9/25/2015 9:01 AM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>> On 09/25/2015 10:18 AM, santosh shilimkar wrote:
>>> On 9/25/2015 7:50 AM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> But, how about userspace
>>>> needing to know which SoC they are on, without needing to depend on
>>>> board->soc mapping? How do we help resolve that?
>>>>
>>> Why the user space should care about exact SOC ?
>>
>> examples vary - trivial one is: debug tools like omapconf[1] or testing
>> tools like opentest[2] need some standard way to ensure Linux kernel is
>> functional - trusting the least set of parameters is usually what we
>> would prefer. while building a generic distro such as debian or yocto,
>> one prefers NOT to need to do a package build per SoC/perboard - that
>> never scales. instead, you'd like the same application run on different
>> systems dynamically.
>>
> I guessed omapconf example is coming though Keystone has no such tool

:) That is true - as of now. maynot be the case for future.

> yet ;-). Opentest shouldn't need that info either.

we did debate this on opentest, but we could not implement anything
since we did not have a consistent solution yet.

> I do agree that having a soc along with board is useful in
> longer run to accommodation more boards and variants.
> And only on that merit, I am willing to take these patches.
> 
> Please refresh the series commit messages based on the
> discussion so far and repost. Will pick it up then.
> 
Thanks. I will do so (probably early next week)..


-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
--
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/