linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] Documentation/process: add soc maintainer handbook

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:   Tue, 16 May 2023 10:15:40 +0100
From:   Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
CC:     Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>, <soc@...nel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] Documentation/process: add soc maintainer handbook

On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 11:06:41AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 16/05/2023 10:57, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 10:31:19AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 15/05/2023 21:20, Conor Dooley wrote:

> >>> + - Defer the devicetree changes to a release after the binding and driver have
> >>> +   already been merged
> >>> +
> >>> + - Change the bindings in a shared immutable branch that is used as the base for
> >>> +   both the driver change and the devicetree changes
> >>
> >> The policy told to me some time ago was that no merges from driver
> >> branch or tree are allowed towards DTS branch, even if they come only
> >> with binding header change. There are exceptions for this, e.g. [1], but
> >> that would mean we need to express here rules for cross-tree merges.
> > 
> > I've got away with having an immutable branch for dt-binding headers!
> 
> Of course, all is in an immutable branch, but in which tree?

For example:
- dt-bindings & header with the clock defines in the base/immutable branch
  on top of -rc1
- driver patches on top of the immutable branch, in a PR to Stephen
- dts patches on top of the immutable branch, PR to Arnd

So, clock tree doesn't get the dts, soc tree doesn't get the driver.
Hopefully that clarifies what I meant.

> I talk about a case when driver tree, e.g. different clock maintainer,
> takes the binding.

If the other tree just "takes the binding", without some coordination,
then you're SOOL and have to wait a release.

> > That said, Arnd did actually have a look at this (and suggested some
> > changes) before I sent it & did not cry fowl about this section. IIRC,
> > this is actually his wording, not mine.

Probably worth Arnd chiming in & just telling us what he is okay with
taking.

Cheers,
Conor.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)