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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 15 Mar 2019 13:33:31 +0000
From:   Aisheng Dong <aisheng.dong@....com>
To:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, Patrick Wildt <patrick@...eri.se>
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

> From: Stephen Boyd [mailto:sboyd@...nel.org]
> 
> 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.

AFAIK no one out there using it for product without being able to update accordingly,
as it still has a very preliminary support.
So I agree we need to fix it at this early time

Tested-and-Acked-by: Dong Aisheng <aisheng.dong@....com>

Regards
Dong Aisheng