linux-kernel - Re: [1/3] ARM: dts: imx51-zii-common: create common include dtsi

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: <CAHQ1cqGxXg5QYMTxbSsNDDr=ot0h0XWW98hHNVnf+SQhrjoL=g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 10:33:22 -0700
From:   Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@...il.com>
To:     Nikita Yushchenko <nikita.yoush@...entembedded.com>
Cc:     Andrey Gusakov <andrey.gusakov@...entembedded.com>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
        Sascha Hauer <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@....com>, linux-imx@....com,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Chris Healy <cphealy@...il.com>,
        Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [1/3] ARM: dts: imx51-zii-common: create common include dtsi

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 9:59 AM Nikita Yushchenko
<nikita.yoush@...entembedded.com> wrote:
>
> > There are three boards that share that configuration almost to a T,
> > with the only difference is the particular GPIOs used. Putting it into
> > a common file avoids repeating the boilerplate and makes it explicit
> > to the reader that those settings are shared.
>
> I'd agree if that boilerplate was 100 lines.
>

OK, so your threshold is 100 lines, mine is 3. Agree to disagree?

> But here it is small, and mostly containing lines that are required for
> any i2c-gpio definition. It does not any value of itself.
>
> Saving 5 lines at cost of loose of integrity is not something I agree with.
>

Can we maybe tone it down and not make this sound like a struggle of
"good vs. evil"?

> > There are at least two boards that use that UART2 as is. Same as above
> > this was done to reduce boilerplate.
>
> Here have choice between two logical blocks - definitions of uart2 in
> two boards that use them, and two logical blocks - definition in dtsi
> and undo in board that does not use it.
>
> You trade a couple of saved dts lines against keeping things consistent.

That's your POV, mine is that I save a couple of lines and things are
still consistent.

>
> Nikita
>
> P.S.
> In case of these zii boards I doubt that dtsi worths at all. Despite of
> all being imx51 boards from ZII, these boards don't seem to have large
> common logical blocks. Perhaos RDU1 and babbage have more in common - so
> what, create a dtsi for them?

Nope, that slippery slope doesn't exist at all. We have a clear
boundary/decision criteria of common vendor.

As I said, let's leave this decision up to the maintainers and avoid
continuing having this argument where neither party convinces another.

Thanks,
Andrey Smirnov