linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/7] ARM: dts: exynos: Remove skeleton.dtsi usage and fix memory node DTC warnings

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: <20160901114046.GB4220@leverpostej>
Date:   Thu, 1 Sep 2016 12:40:46 +0100
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:     Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>
Cc:     Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Kukjin Kim <kgene@...nel.org>,
        linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] ARM: dts: exynos: Remove skeleton.dtsi usage and fix
 memory node DTC warnings

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 11:59:48AM +0200, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> On Thursday, September 01, 2016 10:35:15 AM Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> > On 08/31/2016 07:40 PM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 03:45:24 PM Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> > >> The idea is to get rid of skeleton.dtsi [0], but that will of course take
> > >> time until the dtsi is removed from all the files. So this patch is a step
> > >> in the right direction so at least Exynos is not a blocker to remove it.
> > > 
> > > Krzysztof's point is valid.  If you are going to convert all DTS/DTSI
> > > then it is okay to apply Exynos specific changes, otherwise the code
> > > should stay as it is currently.
> > > 
> > > Exynos won't be a blocker since we have your patches now and they can
> > > be applied when/if needed ;)..
> > 
> > Sorry but I disagree. I see no reasons to need this to be an atomic, rather
> > than incremental change. Deprecated things are usually handled by removing
> > the usage and once there are no users, finally removing them.
> 
> Yes, given that there is agreement on the direction and people are aware
> of the needed changes.  This doesn't seem to be a case yet as there is
> no comment in skeleton.dtsi about being deprecated and other platforms'
> Maintainers are not aware of the need for the change.

On the DT side we're all agreed that skeleton.dtsi should die. I'll send
a patch adding a note to skeleton.dtsi to make this more obvious, but
that shouldn't be a blocker for removing existing uses.

Thanks,
Mark.