linux-kernel - Re: spi: OF module autoloading is still broken

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: <564A191B.3040004@osg.samsung.com>
Date:	Mon, 16 Nov 2015 14:57:47 -0300
From:	Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:	Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
	Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
	linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: spi: OF module autoloading is still broken

Hello Mark,

On 11/16/2015 02:49 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 02:19:27PM -0300, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>> On 11/13/2015 08:48 PM, Brian Norris wrote:
> 
>>> (I believe I avoided this in the first place for mostly-aesthetic
>>> reasons; technically this allows people to put garbage in their DT, like
>>> "garbage,spi-nor". It's unclear whether "garbage" becomes part of the
>>> mythical DT ABI [1].)
> 
>> I don't believe your examples are part of the mythical DT ABI. What I
>> understand is that an ABI is whatever is documented in the DT binding
>> docs but the only document that mentions the m25p80 is:
> 
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/jedec,spi-nor.txt
> 
> Not really, in practice an ABI is something that people notice breaking.
> This means that if enough people ship an undocumented ABI (or it goes
> into important enough products) it's just as good as something that's
> documented, perhaps better than something that's documented and nobody
> ever uses as an ABI.
> 

I see, fair enough. Let's see what Brian say about the spi-nor case and
I'll also post my RFC patch but as a proper patch and adding the comments
you asked me later today.

It would be unfortunate if the SPI drivers would have as a requirement to
always have an SPI device ID table even for OF-only IPs but I don't think
that is that bad either.

Best regards,
-- 
Javier Martinez Canillas
Open Source Group
Samsung Research America
--
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/