linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] CHROMIUM: arm64: dts: qcom: Add sc7180-gelarshie

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]

Message-ID: <b7ff08b8-60fb-7629-9399-3d5cca46ab9e@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 14 Apr 2022 09:10:32 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc:     Mars Chen <chenxiangrui@...qin.corp-partner.google.com>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] CHROMIUM: arm64: dts: qcom: Add sc7180-gelarshie

On 13/04/2022 23:48, Doug Anderson wrote:
> I'm actually kinda curious: is there really a good reason for this? I
> know I haven't been adding things to
> `Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml` for Qualcomm
> Chromebooks.  Ironically, it turns out that the script I typically use
> to invoke checkpatch happens to have "--no-tree" as an argument and
> that seems to disable this check. Doh!
> 
> That being said, though, I do wonder a little bit about the value of
> enumerating the top-level compatible like this in a yaml file.
> Certainly the yaml schema validation in general can be quite useful,
> but this top-level listing seems pure overhead. I guess it makes some
> tools happy, but other than that it seems to provide very little
> value...

If compatible is not part of ABI, it is allowed to change in whatever
shape one wishes. In such case, how can anyone (e.g. user-space)
identify the board? Model name? Also not part of ABI (not documented)...


Best regards,
Krzysztof