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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <577FFE3E.50600@gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 8 Jul 2016 12:25:50 -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 12:20, Frank Rowand wrote:
> 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
         ^^^ note

> 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
>