linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ARM: uniphier: drop code for old DT binding

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:	Wed, 1 Jun 2016 15:30:03 +0900
From:	Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	arm@...nel.org, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: uniphier: drop code for old DT binding

Hi Arnd.

2016-05-31 18:21 GMT+09:00 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>:
> On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 5:17:08 PM CEST Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>> Commit 307d40c56b0c ("ARM: uniphier: rework SMP code to support new
>> System Bus binding") added a new DT binding for SMP code, but still
>> kept old code for the backward compatibility.
>>
>> Linux 4.6 was out with both bindings supported, so it should not
>> hurt to drop the old code now.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
>>
>
> That explanation is in general not sufficient. Are you sure that
> nobody is shipping a machine with their own dts file that is not
> merged upstream, and that there are no bootloaders that have a
> hardcoded dtb file that we need to support indefinitely?
>

I have to confess that almost no one (except me) uses this upstreamed
code directly.
It can boot, but it is almost useless for practical uses (at least for
production level)
because it still lacks lots of drivers.

Our products based on ARM 32bit SoCs were shipped with old kernel
(without device tree) that were never upstreamed.

Socionext is now trying to change the development procedure
and the situation will be much better for ARM64 SoC products; it will be
more community-based development, although they are not shipped yet.

So, the answer is,  nobody is shipping ARM32 products using this upstream code.
Device Tree is not used in the first place.
(But, I still believe I should keep upstreaming.)

-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada