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]

Date:   Tue, 13 Sep 2016 16:47:30 +0100
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:     Sebastian Frias <sf84@...oste.net>
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 Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 04:55:59PM +0200, Sebastian Frias wrote:
> On 09/13/2016 03:12 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >> Exactly, that is why I was thinking it would take less "review" time.
> >> Indeed, if there is no driver, why would it matter what those bindings
> >> are?
> > 
> > If you believe that the bindings don't matter, then there is absolutely
> > no reason for them to exist in the first place.
> > 
> > If those binding matter to *anyone*, then those collating the bindings
> > have some responsibility of stewardship, and that includes
> > review/maintenance/etc.
> 
> The thing is that right now it seems the "responsibility of stewardship"
> lies only within "Linux", whereas DT is proposed as open for everybody,
> Bootloaders, FreeBSD, etc.
> 
> In that case, shouldn't the "responsibility" be shared?

Ideally, yes.

Which is one of the reasons devicetree.org was set up as a common forum
for projects to collaborate on devicetree.

Thanks,
Mark.