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 11:48:43 -0600
From:   "Andrew F. Davis" <>
To:     Mark Brown <>
CC:     Liam Girdwood <>,
        Rob Herring <>,
        Mark Rutland <>,
        BenoƮt Cousson <>,
        Tony Lindgren <>,
        <>, <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 09/19] ASoC: tlv320aic31xx: Remove platform data

On 12/06/2017 11:30 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 10:19:28AM -0600, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
>> On 12/06/2017 06:45 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> Then if you want to upstream the driver you'll have to add the platform
>>> data support again.  Like I say not all architectures have anything
>>> other than board files.
>> Then they can try, but they will rightfully get nack'd and told to stop
>> using board files and use DT/ACPI. Most upstream architectures don't use
>> board files anymore anyway, so I doubt this will ever happen.
> No.  To repeat, not all architectures use DT or ACPI.  Expecting someone
> to impelement DT or ACPI support for an entire architecture and try to
> bring the ecosystem for that architecture along in order to add machine
> support is obviously totally unreasonable.

That would be unreasonable I agree, but it's also completely
hypothetical, as again, there are no in-tree users and most platforms
are DT/ACPI, so the odds of anyone needing it are next to nothing.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists