linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Documentation/process: maintainer-soc: document dtbs

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <0beb714b-7e8d-6699-6f09-df68b9307f1c@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 12 Jul 2023 21:37:03 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
        soc@...nel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, workflows@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation/process: maintainer-soc: document
 dtbs_check requirement for Samsung

On 12/07/2023 14:34, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 01:46:20PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 12/07/2023 11:48, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 10:41:31AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> Samsung ARM/ARM64 SoCs (except legacy S5PV210) are also expected not to
>>>> bring any new dtbs_check warnings.  In fact this have been already
>>>> enforced and tested since few release.
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>
>>>> Not sure where to document this. Creating new maintainer profile for
>>>> Samsung SoC would be an overkill. OTOH, more SoCs might want to grow
>>>> this list, so this also scales poor.
>>>
>>> To me, this portion of the document was "information to the
>>> submaintainer", which would be you, not information to the contributors
>>> to the platform. Adding the comment about Samsung SoC seems aimed at
>>> contributors?
>>
>> Yes, I want to document it for contributors, so they won't be surprised.
>> Any hints where to store it? I could put it in the "About" tab of my
>> kernel.org repo, but no one checks this for contribution guidelines.
> 
> I've not got a better suggestion for where to put this, but under
> something labelled as "Information for (new) Submaintainers" isn't
> where I would be looking as a contributor.

Yeah, true.

> Is adding to the generic DT documentation that dtbs_check should not add
> any new warnings at W=1 too extreme?

It is to extreme. Several sub-arch maintainers might prioritize features
than DT schema compliance. I would say it is their choice, even if I
don't agree with it.

> writing-schema.rst has the instructions about how to run dtbs_check while
> writing dt-binding patches, but we don't seem to have any docs about
> running dtbs_check for dts/dtsi changes.

Maybe I will add generic maintainer-sub-arch-soc profile doc which then
can be linked by multiple soc subsystems.

Best regards,
Krzysztof