linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Greybus driver subsystem for 4.9-rc1

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: <20160921141328.GA21705@kroah.com>
Date:   Wed, 21 Sep 2016 16:13:28 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Johan Hovold <johan@...oldconsulting.com>,
        Rui Miguel Silva <rmfrfs@...il.com>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
        Sandeep Patil <sspatil@...gle.com>,
        Matt Porter <mporter@...nel.crashing.org>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>, David Lin <dtwlin@...gle.com>,
        Bryan O'Donoghue <pure.logic@...us-software.ie>,
        Vaibhav Agarwal <vaibhav.agarwal@...aro.org>,
        Mark Greer <mgreer@...malcreek.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Greybus driver subsystem for 4.9-rc1

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 02:02:10PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > As for the drivers all living under drivers/greybus/ I understand, but
> > we need the greybus core present first before we can get the drivers in.
> > How about we do what happened with IIO, we take the greybus core code in
> > drivers/greybus/ and put the drivers in staging, and then move them out
> > of staging into the "real" portion of the kernel as they get reviewed
> > and accepted?
> > 
> > Any objections to that workflow?
> 
> Personally, yes.
> 
> I would rather see the few core patches go through some level of review
> first. It's vastly easier to handle that than to reverse-engineer an
> understanding of the code when "move XXX out of staging/" patches
> appear.
> 
> I'm more than happy to review a reasonably-size, linearised series for
> that core code.
> 
> My concerns previously mentioned still apply to the patches queued in
> linux-next, regardless of whether these patches are under staging.
> Especially given the ABI implications of the devicetree bindings.

There are no ABI implications just yet, we are free to change anything
we want.  It's all in drivers/staging/ now, where we will clean it up
some more over the next few weeks and then post reviewable sets of
patches to move portions out of staging (greybus core first, then some
class drivers, then the subsystem-specific things).  That will give you
your set of clean patches to review, and with the first rounds, no
device tree bindings at all :)

thanks,

greg k-h