linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: clock: imx8mq: Fix numbering overlaps and gaps

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]

Date:   Tue, 12 Mar 2019 21:59:22 +0100
From:   Patrick Wildt <patrick@...eri.se>
To:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
Cc:     Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@....com>,
        Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@....com>,
        Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Sascha Hauer <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: clock: imx8mq: Fix numbering overlaps and
 gaps

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 01:39:50PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Patrick Wildt (2019-03-12 00:36:54)
> > On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 07:29:05AM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > It's mostly about making sure that any existing dtbs don't have their
> > > numbers shifted around. So hopefully any overlapping identifiers aren't
> > > in use yet and then those ids can be changed while leaving the ones that
> > > are in use how they are.
> > 
> > In practice I bet no one uses Linux 5.0's i.MX8M device trees since they
> > lack too much support.  It's so basic it's not useful.  You'd still run
> > your existing non-mainline bindings until it is.  Thus I would argue
> > changing the ABI right now would be the only chance there is.
> > 
> > If you think that chance is gone, then I guess the reasonable thing is
> > to keep the numbers and only move those (to the end) which overlap.  Or
> > put them into that erreneous number gap.
> > 
> 
> The chance is quickly slipping away because we're going to be at -rc1
> soon. I'm not the one to decide what is and isn't being used by people
> out there, so I'm happy to apply this patch now before the next -rc1
> comes out as long as it doesn't break anything in arm-soc area. The
> confidence I'm getting isn't high though. Has anyone from NXP reviewed
> this change? Maybe I can get an ack from someone else that normally
> looks after the arm-soc/dts side of things here indicating that nothing
> should go wrong? That would increase my confidence levels.

The person that supplied the diff apparently is from NXP, which should
be enough to say that NXP reviewed it?

It's a bit of a shame that the ones that are CC'd keep quiet.  I would
take this chance and go ahead with it.  After 5.1/rc1 there will be no
chance to rectify this in a sane way.