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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Sun, 26 Mar 2023 17:57:00 +0100
From:   Shane Francis <bigbeeshane@...il.com>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
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

Hi Krzysztof

So mention this in the commit msg.

On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 3:51 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> 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
>