linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] arm64: dts: qcom: sc7280: Add herobrine-r1

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]

Message-ID: <CAD=FV=WQ0gR18x9rhioLtYGO3oWtny1c52YaiZHUG=PG03d+OQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 31 Jan 2022 17:01:02 -0800
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To:     Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
Cc:     Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org>,
        kgodara@...eaurora.org, Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
        Sibi Sankar <sibis@...eaurora.org>,
        Prasad Malisetty <pmaliset@...eaurora.org>,
        quic_rjendra@...cinc.com, Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] arm64: dts: qcom: sc7280: Add herobrine-r1

Hi,

On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 8:50 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> > Either we leave it as is - which follows my interpretation of what the DT
> > spec says - or we (and the DT maitainers) agree that it shouldn't be
> > there (because this dtb won't run on any random qcom,sc7180 anyways) at
> > all.
>
> I'm curious what part of the DT spec says that we should have the SoC
> in there? I know I've always done it, but it's always just been
> following the examples of what was done before. When talking about the
> root node, I see this in the `devicetree-specification-v0.4-rc1` spec:
>
> ---
>
> Specifies a list of platform architectures with which this platform is
> compatible. This property can be used by operating systems in
> selecting platform specific code. The recommended form of the property
> value is: "manufacturer,model"
>
> For example:
> compatible = "fsl,mpc8572ds"
>
> ---
>
> That doesn't say anything about putting the SoC there.
>
>
> I would also note that I'd be at least moderately inclined to land
> things as-is and deal with this in a follow-up patch, though I'm happy
> to spin if that's what people agree upon too. This is not a new
> problem and so it doesn't seem like it makes sense to glom dealing
> with it into this patch series...

I noticed that you applied the first 4 patches in the series (thanks!)
but not this one. Are we waiting to get agreement on this before
landing? As per above, I think it'd be OK to land as-is and then I'm
happy to do a follow-up patch to clean this up since this isn't a new
issue. Having this patch outstanding makes it a little confusing with
the other cleanup patches that I'm posting... ;-)

Thanks!

-Doug