linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Portable Device Tree Connector -- conceptual

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: <577FFCEB.9010600@gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 8 Jul 2016 12:20:11 -0700
From:	Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
To:	Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@...sulko.com>,
	David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>
Cc:	robh+dt@...nel.org, stephen.boyd@...aro.org, broonie@...nel.org,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>, mark.rutland@....com,
	Matt Porter <mporter@...sulko.com>, koen@...inion.thruhere.net,
	linux@...ck-us.net, marex@...x.de, wsa@...-dreams.de,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Portable Device Tree Connector -- conceptual

On 07/08/16 00:26, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
>> On Jul 7, 2016, at 10:15 , David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
>>

< snip >

>> Given that we're going to need new code to support this new connector
>> model, I think we should also fix some of the uglies in the current
>> overlay format while we're at it.
>>
> 
> We need to keep compatibility with the old format. There are 5 million
> RPIs sold, half a million beaglebones and C.H.I.P. is coming out too.
> They all use overlays in one form or another.
> 
> That’s not counting all the custom boards that actively use them.
> 
> We have a user base now.

Please not that I AM NOT suggesting the we remove compatibility with
the old format!!!

But I need to push back on the idea that we have a user base that we
need to keep compatibility with.  If I understand correctly, that
user base is based on using much code that is not in mainline, including
an altered dtc and a cape manager.

People using out of tree code can not use the fact that code exists and
is being widely used to force us to mainline that out of tree code.
That is the risk of using out of tree code.

I do not want to start a big discussion about this now since there is
no plan to remove the compatibility at this point.

-Frank