linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] dt-bindings: clock: update rk3588 clock definitions

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1b9c8e19-10f2-824d-9b50-51e7a9287bb1@linaro.org>
Date:   Sun, 26 Mar 2023 16:51:20 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Shane Francis <bigbeeshane@...il.com>
Cc:     robh+dt@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
        heiko@...ech.de, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] dt-bindings: clock: update rk3588 clock definitions

On 26/03/2023 14:02, Shane Francis wrote:
>> Please wrap commit message according to > > Linux coding style /
> submission
> 
> Will do, I haven't submitted patches for a while totally forgot the
> wrapping guidelines
> 
>> Unfortunately the reason is not good enough > for ABI break. Replace
>> vendor boot uboots with open-source one or > just correct them (it's still
>> U-Boot so even for vendor one you have the source).
> 
> Replacing uboot is fine for this case, however I can foresee that can cause
> issues further down the line.
> 
> 
> 1. No uboot source from the vendor, we all know no everyone respects code
> licencing
> 
> 2. Secure environments (like android tables), this chipset will likely end
> up in android tablets that have the secure boot chain enable. These will be
> unable to replace uboot even if source is available.

So mention this in the commit msg.

> 
> As this SoC is new to the Linux kernel (not even useable for much it's
> current state) would it not be better to aling on this so vendor and
> mainline DTS "agree" now rather than possibly have to address is in the
> future ?

Then commit msg should also mention it.



Best regards,
Krzysztof