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 16:42:19 +0100
From:   Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>
To:     Tobias Jakobi <tjakobi@...h.uni-bielefeld.de>
Cc:     Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        ML dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, wens@...e.org,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] ARM: sun8i: a33: Mali improvements

On 17/02/2017 at 13:45:44 +0100, Tobias Jakobi wrote:
> > 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.
> 

Because device tree describes the hardware, the added binding doesn't
support any particular module. The eventually upstreamed drvier will
share the same bindings.

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

Exactly not, if you do that, checkpatch will complain loudly. Because
you must not add a driver using bindings that are not documented first.


-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com