linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3] watchdog: sp805: Add clock-frequency property

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: <20180711153950.GA19932@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Wed, 11 Jul 2018 08:39:50 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Cc:     Srinath Mannam <srinath.mannam@...adcom.com>,
        wim@...ux-watchdog.org, Ray Jui <ray.jui@...adcom.com>,
        Vladimir Olovyannikov <vladimir.olovyannikov@...adcom.com>,
        Vikram Prakash <vikram.prakash@...adcom.com>,
        Scott Branden <scott.branden@...adcom.com>,
        linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3] watchdog: sp805: Add clock-frequency property

On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 04:30:16PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 06:47:49AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On 07/11/2018 06:22 AM, Srinath Mannam wrote:
> > >Hi Guenter,
> > >
> > >Thank you very much for all the help with your feedback and review
> > >comments to complete the changes very fast.
> > >
> > >About the documentation..
> > >I have gone through few similar patches available in the kernel are
> > >listed in the mail of previous version.
> > >No documentation available in Linux for the properties used in those
> > >patches also.
> >
> > " No documentation available _in Linux_"
> >
> > Emphasis mine. Yes, I noticed this as well. I was asking for a reference
> > to documentation _outside_ Linux. Sorry for not being more specific.
> 
> Typically new properties needs to registered or discussed in dsd@...ica.org
> Though there's almost no activity on that list for more than a year now.
> IIRC, the thread[1] gives kind of agreement that was reached after
> elaborate discussion on _DSD properties.
> 

I think you are saying that there are no real rules or governing body
for _DSD properties, that _DSD properties are free for all, subject to no
scrutiny, that a database with assigned _DSD properties does not exist,
and that therefore there is no means for me to determine if this is an
approved property.

What prevents someone else to use a different property name for the same
driver and property next week, on a different product using the same
hardware ?

Guenter