linux-kernel - How to remove DT support from a driver? (was Re: [PATCH v5 8/8] i2c: i2c-mlxbf.c: Update binding devicetree)

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: <Yyttt3DiQpMZYejA@shikoro>
Date:   Wed, 21 Sep 2022 22:01:59 +0200
From:   Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>
To:     Asmaa Mnebhi <asmaa@...dia.com>
Cc:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "robh@...nel.org" <robh@...nel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
        Khalil Blaiech <kblaiech@...dia.com>
Subject: How to remove DT support from a driver? (was Re: [PATCH v5 8/8] i2c:
 i2c-mlxbf.c: Update binding devicetree)

Hi,

> I have a question for you and Wolfram, we don’t use device trees and
> are not planning to use device trees; we only use ACPI tables. But I
> think when Khalil submitted the first version of the i2c-mlxbf.c
> driver, it was requested from him to add devicetree support. Do you
> know why? Is it possible to remove the device tree support and so this
> doc? or is devicetree support a requirement regardless of the actual
> implementation? 

The first version sent from Khalil to the public I2C mailing list already
had DT bindings [1]. I don't see a sign of someone of the public list
requesting DT bindings. Maybe it was company internal?

Technically, there is no requirement to support DT, especially since you
have working ACPI. I don't know the process, though, of removing DT
support. You would basically need to be sure that no user made use of
the DT bindings introduced before. I don't know to what degree you can
assume that.

Maybe the DT list has more to add here?

Happy hacking,

   Wolfram

[1] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-i2c/list/?series=73827&state=*


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)