linux-kernel - Re: Device tree representation of (hotplug) connectors: discussion at ELCE

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: <cd9763b7-919a-4b44-a347-f1491d9584b9@beagleboard.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 22:33:50 +0530
From: Ayush Singh <ayush@...gleboard.org>
To: David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>,
 Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Herve Codina <herve.codina@...tlin.com>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Andrew Davis <afd@...com>, Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
 Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@...tlin.com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 Jason Kridner <jkridner@...il.com>, Krzysztof Kozlowski
 <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
 devicetree-compiler@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: Device tree representation of (hotplug) connectors: discussion at
 ELCE


On 9/24/25 09:41, David Gibson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 12:29:27PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> Hi Hervé,
>>
>> On Tue, 23 Sept 2025 at 11:49, Herve Codina <herve.codina@...tlin.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2025 18:09:13 +1000
>>> David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
>>>> Ah, right.  To be clear: we absolutely don't want multiple addons
>>>> altering the same nodes.  But I think we could do that in ways other
>>>> than putting everything under a connector.  This is exactly why I
>>>> think we should think this through as an end-to-end problem, rather
>>>> trying to do it as a tweak to the existing (crap) overlay system.
>>>>
>>>> So, if we're thinking of this as an entirely new way of updating the
>>>> base dt - not "an overlay" - we can decide on the rules to ensure that
>>>> addition and removal is sane.  Two obvious ones I think we should
>>>> definitely have are:
>>>>
>>>> a) Addons can only add completely new nodes, never modify existing
>>>>     ones.  This means that whatever addons are present at runtime,
>>>>     every node has a single well defined owner (either base board or
>>>>     addon).
>>> In this rule I suppose that "never modify existing ones" should be understood
>>> as "never modify, add or remove properties in existing ones". Because, of course
>>> adding a full node in a existing one is allowed (rule b).
>> What if the add-on board contains a provider for the base board.
>> E.g. the connector has a clock input, fed by an optional clock generator
>> on the add-on board.  Hooking that into the system requires modifying
>> a clocks property in the base board, cfr. [1].
>> Or is there some other solution?
> Hmm.  My first inclination would be that this case is not in scope for
> the protocol we're trying to design now.  If the widget provides
> things to the base board as well as the other way around, it's no
> longer an "addon" for the purposes of this spec.
>
> But it's possible I've underestimated how common / useful such a case
> is.
>
> Note that I'd expect the existing overlay mechanism to still be
> around.  It may be ugly and not very well thought out, but its
> drawbacks are much less severe if you're not dealing with hot unplug.
>

Well, while that was not an initial use-case in my mind, external clock 
inputs are a valid use-case when talking about connectors for board 
headers specifically (e.g. pocketbeagle connector).


Best Regards,

Ayush Singh