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:   Mon, 04 Sep 2023 09:54:53 +0100
From:   Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To:     Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@...goat.com>
Cc:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        Binbin Zhou <zhoubb.aaron@...il.com>,
        Binbin Zhou <zhoubinbin@...ngson.cn>,
        Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...ngson.cn>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
        loongson-kernel@...ts.loongnix.cn, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, diasyzhang@...cent.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] dt-bindings: interrupt-controller: loongson,liointc: Fix warnings about liointc-2.0

On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 16:25:48 +0100,
Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@...goat.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 在 2023/8/30 21:44, Marc Zyngier 写道:
> [...]
> >> What's the best way, in your opinion, to overhaul this property? As we don't
> >> really care backward compatibility of DTBs on those systems we can
> >> just redesign it.
> > You may not care about backward compatibility, but I do. We don't
> > break existing systems, full stop.
> Ah it won't break any existing system. Sorry for not giving enough insight
> into the platform in previous reply. As for Loongson64 all DTBs are built
> into kernel binary. So as long as binding are changed together with all DTS
> in tree we won't break any system.

This is factually wrong. QEMU produces a DT for Loongarch at runtime.
So no, you're not allowed to just drop bindings on the floor. They
stay forever.

> > As for the offending property, it has no place here either. DT is not
> > the place where you put "performance knobs".
> Hmm, I can see various bindings with vendor prefix exposing device
> configurations. If we seen this interrupt routing as a device configuration
> I don't think it's against devicetree design philosophy.

Just because we have tons of crap in the device trees doesn't give you
a license to be just as bad.

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ