linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: dts: rockchip: rename and sort the rk356x usb2 phy handles

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, 29 Jan 2022 10:23:18 +0100
From:   Piotr Oniszczuk <piotr.oniszczuk@...il.com>
To:     Peter Geis <pgwipeout@...il.com>,
        Michael Riesch <michael.riesch@...fvision.net>
Cc:     "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." <linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
        Nicolas Frattaroli <frattaroli.nicolas@...il.com>,
        Liang Chen <cl@...k-chips.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: dts: rockchip: rename and sort the rk356x usb2
 phy handles



> 
> Good Evening,
> 
> While I'm not against this idea, my main concern still stands.
> I spent a great deal of thought on this, and decided to go the route I
> did to maintain consistency with previous generations.
> As such, I see one of three paths here:
> - Pull this patch only and depart rk356x from previous SoCs.
> - Do the same for previous SoCs to maintain consistency.
> - Drop this patch to maintain consistency with previous SoCs.
> 
> I ask that others weigh in here, as offline discussion has produced
> mixed results already.

just pure user perspective

(who spent last weeks considerable time to develop DT for rk3566 tvbox. 99% of my work was by reading/learning from other boards existing DT's. Any inconsistencies in DTs makes work for such ppl like me much more harder):

For option 1 - i don't see value
For option 2 - what is reward for extra work needs to be done on all other SoCs?

so option 3 seems to be natural choice...

in other words:

for me:
option 1 brings practically zero value + increased inconsistency.
option 2: extra work - but consistency is like in option 3 (so where is value?)

so option 3 offers the same consistency - but without extra work...
 
just my 0.02$