linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 46/58] clocksource/drivers: Add a new driver for the Atmel ARM TC blocks

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: <cd8c34e1-de72-c5e4-ec80-67628b037aa4@microchip.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Jun 2017 17:26:27 +0200
From:   Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>
To:     Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 46/58] clocksource/drivers: Add a new driver for the Atmel
 ARM TC blocks

Le 12/06/2017 à 15:25, Daniel Lezcano a écrit :
> On 12/06/2017 14:54, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
>>> I like the 'chosen' approach with the nodes you are proposing below. Thanks for
>>> the constructive suggestion. The binding description matches perfectly what we
>>> are trying to achieve.
>>>
>>> Rob? what do you think?
>>
>> I'm following this work from a distance but as we've just celebrated the
>> 1st anniversary for this patch series (11 June 2016), I propose that we
>> now make up our mind quickly. Everybody seem to be on the same page and
>> willing to make this rework move forward.
>>
>> In Microchip/Atmel we would like to actually use this TCB rework both
>> internally and in our mainline work to avoid having to rely on our own
>> out-of-tree implementation.
>>
>> The newly-added samv7 cortex-M can't boot without this series and a use
>> of our current cortex-A SoCs with TrustZone in Secure World (SWd) is not
>> possible with current mainline code only. On these two examples, the
>> current timer on which we rely, the PIT, is not present.
>>
>> So you probably understand that more than one year without real progress
>> begins to be a little bit frustrating for the AT91 users...
> 
> Nicolas,
> 
> who are you exactly blaming?
> 
> Are you surprised a 58 patches series, with a gazillion of Cc'ed people
> posted awhile ago, is ignored?

Daniel,

Well, I'm talking about the only patch about DT bindings here, not the
other (large number) of soc/board dts changes.
Note that Alexandre tried to extract this discussion from the other
patches without coming to a conclusion either ("[PATCH v3] ARM: at91:
Document new TCB bindings", for instance).

I had the feeling that this email thread was about to be fading out on a
DT binding discussion, as it had done a couple of times during the last
months... Both you and me produced "ping" messages to make this
discussion progress with no real success so far... This is why I was a
little worried.

Regards,
-- 
Nicolas Ferre