linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8] ARM: sun8i: a33: Mali improvements

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 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:   Fri, 17 Feb 2017 13:45:44 +0100
From:   Tobias Jakobi <tjakobi@...h.uni-bielefeld.de>
To:     Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
Cc:     ML dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, wens@...e.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] ARM: sun8i: a33: Mali improvements

Hello Maxime,

Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 01:43:06PM +0100, Tobias Jakobi wrote:
>> I was wondering about the following. Wasn't there some strict
>> requirement about code going upstream, which also included that there
>> was a full open-source driver stack for it?
>>
>> I don't see how this is the case for Mali, neither in the kernel, nor in
>> userspace. I'm aware that the Mali kernel driver is open-source. But it
>> is not upstream, maintained out of tree, and won't land upstream in its
>> current form (no resemblence to a DRM driver at all). And let's not talk
>> about the userspace part.
>>
>> So, why should this be here?
> 
> The device tree is a representation of the hardware itself. The state
> of the driver support doesn't change the hardware you're running on,
> just like your BIOS/UEFI on x86 won't change the device it reports to
> Linux based on whether it has a driver for it.
Like Emil already said, the new bindings and the DT entries are solely
introduced to support a proprietary out-of-tree module.

The current workflow when introducing new DT entries is the following:
- upstream a driver that uses the entries
- THEN add the new entries

I'm against adding such entries without having any upstream "consumer".


With best wishes,
Tobias


> So yes, unfortunately, we don't have a driver upstream at the
> moment. But that doesn't prevent us from describing the hardware
> accurately.
> 
> Maxime
>