linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 0/6] serial: mvebu-uart: Support for higher baudrates

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:   Sat, 15 Jan 2022 00:20:46 +0100
From:   Pali Rohár <pali@...nel.org>
To:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
Cc:     Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@...tlin.com>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>,
        Vladimir Vid <vladimir.vid@...tura.hr>,
        Marek Behún <kabel@...nel.org>,
        linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/6] serial: mvebu-uart: Support for higher baudrates

On Friday 14 January 2022 15:16:55 Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Pali Rohár (2022-01-14 15:05:49)
> > On Friday 14 January 2022 14:56:58 Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > 
> > > If we're adding new support why can't we break with backwards
> > > compatibility for the binding and do it a different way?
> > 
> > Because DTS are backwards compatible. I was told more times that kernel
> > drivers should work correctly with older DTS files. On some boards are
> > DTB files provided by bootloader and they do not use in-kernel DTS
> > files.
> 
> I'm not suggesting to break the kernel driver when used with older DTBs.
> New features are fair game to change the compatible string and do
> something different. If the user wants the new feature they update their
> DTB. We shouldn't be constrained by backwards compatibility here.

And what do you suggest to do? Separate UART0 and UART1 nodes are still
needed because as Mark wrote stdin-path and stdout-patch could be
different.