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: <caea26e2-6598-4796-b199-4ee5b1b9cd30@linaro.org>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2024 09:46:53 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>, 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>,
 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 23/02/2024 01:24, Rob Herring wrote:
> 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.
> 
> The challenge with that is when do things get marked stable? No one has 
> any motivation to do that (unless users complain). For example, We have 
> a couple of platforms that have an unstable bindings statement that has 
> been there "forever".

I see. Let's see what I can do for existing "unstable" platforms, but
your argument makes sense - rarely people remember to un-unstable
bindings and there aren't that many incentives for maintainer to do so.

> 
> I would like a solution though. The only idea I have is passing 
> SystemReady cert, but that's an Arm thing.


Best regards,
Krzysztof