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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 06:37:16 -0500 From: Timur Tabi <timur@...i.org> To: Sebastian Frias <sf84@...oste.net>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> Cc: devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, Mason <slash.tmp@...e.fr>, 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 Sebastian Frias wrote: > Let's make an abstraction of the word 'binding', 'create a binding', etc. and > just focus on this: > - Somebody submits a DT file that contains properties and nodes that are > *not used* by any Linux driver. > - Said properties and nodes serve as HW description for HW blocks for which > *there is no* Linux driver. > > The goal of the above is to use the DT as the authoritative (and single) > source of HW definition. No. I've grown weary of this discussion. We have explained multiple times why this is impractical. Using the DT to document hardware makes no sense. No one is going to do that, and anyone who attempts to submit a DT binding without an actual driver will get rejected.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists