linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] spidev: Introduce "linux,spidev-name" property for device tree of spidev.

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, 20 May 2024 21:14:54 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Szőke Benjamin <egyszeregy@...email.hu>
Cc: linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] spidev: Introduce "linux,spidev-name" property for
 device tree of spidev.

On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 07:20:12PM +0200, Szőke Benjamin wrote:

> So, in Yocto project build system point of view the best, if any Machine
> specific settings is stored in the device tree files of the target machine
> in driver levels/config, because it will be deterministic in 100% sure and
> it will be nicely separated from the SW meta layers which may not contains
> any machine specific hacking with udev and so on.

Given that with Yocto you're building a full system image it's not
super obvious to me that it is particularly harder to ship udev rules in
the image as opposed to modifying the DT.  It's a little more annoying
but not drastically so and it's not creating a burden on the ABI for
something that's mainly used within a vertically integrated software
stack.

> DT binding would need to be documented later in a separated patch as a
> guideline mentioned it in Linux repo.

No, that needs to happen along with the code change.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)