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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2020 09:34:16 +0100 From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> To: Jagan Teki <jagan@...rulasolutions.com> Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>, Li Yang <leoyang.li@....com>, Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>, devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>, linux-amarula <linux-amarula@...rulasolutions.com>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Matteo Lisi <matteo.lisi@...icam.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/6] arm64: dts: imx8mm: Add Engicam i.Core MX8M Mini C.TOUCH 2.0 On Mon, 28 Dec 2020 at 09:21, Jagan Teki <jagan@...rulasolutions.com> wrote: > > > #include "imx8mm.dtsi" > > > #include "imx8mm-beacon-som.dtsi" > > > #include "imx8mm-beacon-baseboard.dtsi" > > > > > > (SoC dtsi, SoM dtsi, Carrier board dtsi) > > > > > > > design which makes any sense. We do not create empty DTS files which > > > > only include one more DTSI. The contents of > > > > imx8mm-engicam-ctouch2.dtsi should be directly in > > > > imx8mm-icore-mx8mm-ctouch2.dts. That's the same problem as with v1 - > > > > you overcomplicate simple stuff. It really looks like you ignored the > > > > comments from v1 in multiple places. > > > > > > As explained above, the design is pretty much the same as the existing SoM's. > > > > > > imx8mm-engicam-ctouch2.dtsi is not just a dtsi file where nodes are > > > enabled. It has nodes enabled for Carrier board, so keeping nodes > > > separately will > > > > The files represent real devices or their components. So you have a > > SOM - a DTSI file. You have a carrier board - a DTS file. That's > > simple design which is mostly followed, unless something over > > complicated passes the review. > > > > > 1. More verbose for which IP's are available in the carrier board > > > > No difference when carrier DTSI is the DTS. Exactly the same. > > > > > 2. Easy to extend if someone can create another SoM with a similar Carrier. > > > > Not really, if they include carrier DTSI they need to override a lot. > > So usually (including practice - I did it) they *copy* the carrier to > > create their own design. > > But what if the new board has slite change to use exiting carrier like > what ctouch2 10" OF. Can we add ctouch2 dtsi as a separate file for > this case? If you submit another DTS using the imx8mm-engicam-ctouch2.dtsi - with its own differences of course (not copying other DTS...) - then having a DTSI makes sense. In current form, still NAK for all the reasons I explained more than once. Best regards, Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists