linux-kernel - Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 13 Jan 2016 19:15:43 +0000
From:	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:	"H. Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@...delico.com>
Cc:	List for communicating with real GTA04 owners 
	<gta04-owner@...delico.com>, tomeu@...euvizoso.net,
	NeilBrown <neil@...wn.name>,
	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
	Marek Belisko <marek@...delico.com>
Subject: Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART slave device support - version 4

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 02:28:00PM +0100, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
> Hi Tomeu,
> 
> Am 12.01.2016 um 14:06 schrieb Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu@...euvizoso.net>:
> 
> > On 11 May 2015 at 03:56, NeilBrown <neil@...wn.name> wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >> here is version 4 of my "UART slave device" patch set, previously
> >> known as "tty slave devices".
> > 
> > Hi Neil,
> > 
> > do you (or someone else) have plans to continue this work in the short
> > or medium term?
> 
> yes, there is something in our upstreaming pipeline. This one works for us on top of 4.4.0:
> 
> <http://git.goldelico.com/?p=gta04-kernel.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/work/hns/misc/w2sg-tty-slave2-v4>
> 
> There is one point still to be solved: the exact style of the DT bindings.
> 
> We have an idea how a driver can implement two different styles (child node AND phandle)
> so that it is up to the DTS developer to use the one that best fits into the existing DTS.

>From my perspective as a binding maintainer, and as I stated before, the
child node approach made the most sense and was most consistent with the
way we handle other devices.

I don't understand what the benefit of supporting two styles of
description would be, relative to the maintenance cost. Nor do I
understand your fixation with the phandle approach, given it has been
repeatedly disagreed with by binding maintainers.

Thanks,
Mark.