linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] devicetree - document using aliases to set spi bus number.

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: <5744EF5E.5070607@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 24 May 2016 17:18:38 -0700
From:	Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC:	Christer Weinigel <christer@...nigel.se>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] devicetree - document using aliases to set spi bus number.

On 5/24/2016 4:34 PM, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 5/24/2016 11:32 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 08:03:48PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
>>> On 05/24/2016 07:20 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>
>>>> I'm not sure this is something we want to support at all, I can't 
>>>> immediately see anything that does this deliberately in the SPI
>>>> code and obviously the "bus number" is something of a Linux
>>>> specific concept which would need some explanation if we were going
>>>> to document it.  It's something I'm struggling a bit to see a
>>>> robust use case for that isn't better served by parsing sysfs,
>>>> what's the goal here?
>>
>>> If this isn't something that should be in the Documentation/devicetree
>>>  because it's not generig enough, where should Linux-specific
>>> interpretations such as this be documented?
>>
>> I'm not clear that we want to document this at all since I am not clear
>> that there is a sensible use case for doing it.  I did ask for one but
>> you've not articulated one in this reply.  I am much less gung ho than
>> Grant on this one, even as a Linux specific interface it seems very
>> legacy.
>>
> 
> The time for the use case was when the patch was accepted.

I phrased that sentence poorly.  A more clear wording is:
The time for the use case was when the source code patch
was accepted (commit bb29785e0d6d150181704be2efcc3141044625e2).

> 
> It is in the kernel, it is appropriate to document it.
> 
> -Frank
>