linux-kernel - Re: ARM, SoC: About the use DT-defined properties by 3rd-party drivers

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: <57D6D72F.3080605@laposte.net>
Date:   Mon, 12 Sep 2016 18:26:23 +0200
From:   Sebastian Frias <sf84@...oste.net>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:     devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, Mason <slash.tmp@...e.fr>,
        Timur Tabi <timur@...i.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ARM, SoC: About the use DT-defined properties by 3rd-party
 drivers

On 09/12/2016 06:07 PM, Sebastian Frias wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> 
> On 09/12/2016 04:01 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> 3rd parties could choose to write a driver (as opposed to use say, a user-mode
>>> library) if it fits their programming model better, if they think they would
>>> have better performance, or other reasons.
>>
>> A vendor can always choose to "add value" in this manner. The general
>> expectation of *some* driver being upstreamed remains.
> 
> Yes, that's the idea.

Just to clarify, what I meant is that, using the DT as the authoritative
source of HW description is a way to "add value" to everybody, because both,
3rd-parties and the open-source community get the same information.
This creates the conditions for drivers to exist, with the expectation that
eventually said drivers would be upstreamed.