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: <20160913132357.GB23336@leverpostej>
Date:   Tue, 13 Sep 2016 14:23:57 +0100
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:     Timur Tabi <timur@...i.org>
Cc:     Sebastian Frias <sf84@...oste.net>,
        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

Hi Timur,

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 06:37:16AM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
> 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.

Please don't make the same mistake of trivialising this in either
direction.

While we appear to be going in circles, in general there are potentially
valid cases to consider -- there may be system properties/devices that
don't happen to matter to Linux, but are generic, well-defined, and
matter to others. Bindings for those should be considered.

In the absence of any example, as with this thread, there is nothing to
consider, however.

Thanks,
Mark.