linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/8] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document MSM8939 SoC binding

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:   Thu, 19 Jan 2023 00:32:01 +0000
From:   Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>
To:     Stephan Gerhold <stephan@...hold.net>
Cc:     agross@...nel.org, andersson@...nel.org, konrad.dybcio@...aro.org,
        djakov@...nel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, benl@...areup.com,
        shawn.guo@...aro.org, fabien.parent@...aro.org, leo.yan@...aro.org,
        dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/8] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document MSM8939 SoC
 binding

On 18/01/2023 08:47, Stephan Gerhold wrote:
> If we don't support the original bootloaders in a usable way upstream
> then we should not add MSM8939 to the allow list of broken bootloaders
> either, in my opinion.

Yes but, a vendor could just as easily cherry-pick the spin-table 
enabling lk2nd patches back to their lk implementation and begin to drop 
the ongoing burden of supporting the LPM stuff.

We certainly do and should support booting stock lk. There's no sense in 
setting the bar to upstream even higher by imposing a chainloaded 
bootloader on our hypothetical new user.

The right thing to do is to enable the vanilla path but, give the user 
the extra option.

---
bod