linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 1/6] dt-bindings: ti-lmu: Remove LM3697

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: <20180914214220.GA2081@amd>
Date:   Fri, 14 Sep 2018 23:42:20 +0200
From:   Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:     Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@...il.com>
Cc:     Dan Murphy <dmurphy@...com>, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        lee.jones@...aro.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-leds@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/6] dt-bindings: ti-lmu: Remove LM3697

Hi!

> > You may want to learn more about device tree and/or talk to the device
> > tree maintainers. This is an old article. https://lwn.net/Articles/561462/
> 
> The article title is "Device trees as ABI". A device tree is defined
> in the "*.dts" file that is then compiled to a dtb blob, which
> constitutes the ABI. And this ABI should be kept backwards compatible.
> 
> What is discussed here is a documentation of bindings, i.e. according
> to ePAPR: "requirements for how specific types and classes of devices
> are represented in the device tree".
> 
> >From the bindings documented in the
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/ti-lmu.txt only
> ti,lm3532-backlight is used in the mainline dts file
> (arch/arm/boot/dts/omap4-droid4-xt894.dts).
> 
> Having the above it seems that there is no risk of breaking any
> users.

DTBs and bindings are supposed to be portable between operating
systems. You are right there are no _mainline_ _Linux_ users.

> > NAK on this patch. I see that this binding has problems, but
> > introducing different binding for subset of devices is _not_ a fix.
> > 
> >>> What about the multi function devices? They should have same binding.
> >>
> >> The MFD devices defined are not in contention here only the SFD.
> > 
> > I'd like to see common solutions for SFD and MFD, as the hardware is
> > similar, and that includes the code. Having code that is easier to
> > maintain is important, and having many drivers are harder to maintain
> > than one driver.
> > 
> > Milo's code looks better than yours in that regard. I disagree about
> > Milo's code being "nightmare" to modify, and care about "easy to
> > maintain" more than "binary size".
> 
> Easy to maintain will be a dedicated LED class driver.

You mean, 3 dedicated LED class drivers and 3 MFD drivers with LED
parts? We'll need complex driver anyway, and I'd really like to have
just one.

								Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)