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: <5745E9B6.5090204@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 May 2016 11:06:46 -0700
From:	Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
To:	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
CC:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	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 5/25/2016 10:49 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 04:34:50PM -0700, 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.
> 
> No, we don't.
> 
>>>
>>
>> The time for the use case was when the patch was accepted.
> 
> Ideally, yes, but things getting missed in review or later deciding 
> things were a bad idea can always be debated again.
> 
>> It is in the kernel, it is appropriate to document it.
> 
> Things get undocumented all the time when we deprecate them.

If it is deprecated then it should be documented as deprecated so
people do not attempt to use it.

> 
> Rob
>