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:   Wed, 6 Dec 2017 19:27:07 +0000
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     "Andrew F. Davis" <afd@...com>
Cc:     Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] ASoC: Add platforms directory

On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 12:49:39PM -0600, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
> On 12/06/2017 12:42 PM, Mark Brown wrote:

> > We need to preserve old bindings to ensure DT compatiblity, the easiest
> > way to do that is to keep old machine drivers around.  There are plenty
> > of older drivers that wouldn't be accepted now but would at least need
> > replacing with a compatibility layer that adapts the bindings onto one
> > of the generic drivers.  That adaption layer would definitely be useful
> > (basically a big table of platform data) but it'd take time to implement
> > it.

> We then should at least start depreciating them now so that someday we
> can drop that stuff. Isolating them would be the first step.

Moving the drivers around is not going to help with that.  For users the
drivers are not deprecated until someone actually steps up and makes
something that allows the generic drivers to handle the old bindings and
moves them over, at which point we'd just remove things that have been
converted.  We can't just tell them not to use something without
providing an alternative.  For developers they're just going to end up
with the simpler machine drivers sitting next to a bunch of machine
drivers that reasonably exist which I'm not sure clarifies anything.
It's an orthogonal problem.

> > Wouldn't a few regexps in the MAINTAINERS file cover it?  We've already
> > got a bunch of vendors doing this.

> pcm*
> tas*
> tlv*
> twl*

> It's messy how many prefixes we have :/

Eh, not that bad.  And easy enough to do anyway.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists