linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/6] dt-bindings: pinctrl: starfive: Add JH8100 pinctrl

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]

Message-ID: <20240221-overstep-degrading-f0aec67f1221@spud>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 19:39:08 +0000
From: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc: Alex Soo <yuklin.soo@...rfivetech.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>,
	Hal Feng <hal.feng@...rfivetech.com>,
	Ley Foon Tan <leyfoon.tan@...rfivetech.com>,
	Jianlong Huang <jianlong.huang@...rfivetech.com>,
	Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@...il.dk>,
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	Drew Fustini <drew@...gleboard.org>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
	Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/6] dt-bindings: pinctrl: starfive: Add JH8100
 pinctrl

On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 08:24:26AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 20/02/2024 20:10, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 09:11:43AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 20/02/2024 07:42, Alex Soo wrote:
> >>> Add documentation and header file for JH8100 pinctrl driver.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Alex Soo <yuklin.soo@...rfivetech.com>
> >>> ---
> >>
> >>
> >> RFC? Why isn't this patch ready for review?
> > 
> > The TL;DR is that Emil and I didn't want to apply the dts patches to
> > support a platform that hadn't actually been taped out yet. 
> > For an SoC in that state, at least the bindings for, clock and pinctrl
> > could be subject to changes before tapeou. I think putting RFC on those
> > patches is a good idea, but of course the rationale should be mentioned.
> 
> That would be useful information. We also could mark some bindings
> unstable and accept breaking ABI under certain conditions, like that it
> is early work without users for long time.

I don't want to discourage a vendor that's clearly doing a good job of
working on things before they've even taped things out, which is why I
suggested sending clocks/pinctrl as RFC until things are finalised.
I'm not sure what a good way to mention this in the bindings would be,
particularly for clock/pinctrl definitions where things could change
"behind the back" of a user - I'm thinking things like U-Boot here.

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