linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] arm64: new board

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: <20181011164053.zxoucudslmz3w2yn@flea>
Date:   Thu, 11 Oct 2018 18:40:53 +0200
From:   Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com>
To:     Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de>
Cc:     aleksandr.aleksandrov@...id.com, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
        David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>,
        Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>,
        Noralf Trønnes <noralf@...nnes.org>,
        Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] arm64: new board - Emlid Neutis N5

On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 03:20:11PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
> >> Also, I have a general comments, and it really depends on what your
> >> intention about the board ecosystem is. Do you expect the SOM to be
> >> swappable in multiple boards, or do you expect to send it as something
> >> that is just fixed into a daughter board?
> >>
> >> In the former case, you probably want to use overlays instead. In the
> >> latter, you're fine.
> >>
> > Right, we expect the SoM to be swappable. I agree, to use overlays is
> > more convenient, but
> > the devboard DT file will be a reference for the overlays and the future
> > boards based on Neutis.
> 
> What about just keeping the common nodes enabled in a SoM .dts, so that
> the average board doesn't need an Overlay for booting?

I guess the fundamental difference would be if the SoM can be run
free-standing or not. If it is, then overlays would be best. If not,
then I'm fine with using the include like Aleksandr has used.

> @Maxime/Rob, is it possible to merge .dtso files these days? If not,
> could that be considered in the big dts Makefile refactoring? :)

I don't really know what is that big dts Makefile refactoring you're
mentionning, but I don't think we can merge dtso before having the DT
connectors in place.

Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com