linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/10] mtd: spi-nor: aspeed: Rename Kconfig option

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 28 Feb 2022 06:07:01 +0000
From:   Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>
To:     Cédric Le Goater <clg@...d.org>
Cc:     Pratyush Yadav <p.yadav@...com>, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mtd <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...rochip.com>,
        Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
        linux-aspeed <linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Andrew Jeffery <andrew@...id.au>,
        Chin-Ting Kuo <chin-ting_kuo@...eedtech.com>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] mtd: spi-nor: aspeed: Rename Kconfig option

On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 18:50, Cédric Le Goater <clg@...d.org> wrote:
>
> On 2/25/22 08:31, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
> > On 14/02/22 10:42AM, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
> >> To prepare transition to the new Aspeed SMC SPI controller driver using
> >> the spi-mem interface, change the kernel CONFIG option of the current
> >> driver to reflect that the implementation uses the MTD SPI-NOR interface.
> >> Once the new driver is sufficiently exposed, we should remove the old one.
> >
> > I don't quite understand the reasoning behind this. Why keep the old
> > driver around? Why not directly replace it with the new one? Does the
> > new one have any limitations that this one doesn't?
>
> No. The old one has more limitations than the new one. The old one in
> mainline is half baked since we could never merge the necessary bits
> for training. We have been keeping a full version on the OpenBMC tree.
>
> Joel, could we simply drop the old driver in mainline and keep the old
> one in the OpenBMC tree until we feel comfortable ? I guess we need
> more testing.

I would answer Pratyush's question with: the old one is well tested,
and the new one is not. We would intend to keep the old one around for
a release cycle or two, and once we're confident the new one is stable
we would remove the old.