linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: arm: google: Add bindings for frankel/blazer/mustang

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: <CAD=FV=ULAvZ3CkSta7bA5ANhen83RJZ2=qczvPM-gC-_eqTfeg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2025 14:47:42 -0800
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, 
	Peter Griffin <peter.griffin@...aro.org>, André Draszik <andre.draszik@...aro.org>, 
	Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org>, linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, 
	Roy Luo <royluo@...gle.com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@...omium.org>, 
	Julius Werner <jwerner@...omium.org>, William McVicker <willmcvicker@...gle.com>, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: arm: google: Add bindings for frankel/blazer/mustang

Hi,

On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 10:53 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> > I think it would help if you described what you want to do more
> > generically rather than mixed in with "add a new SoC" and send that to
> > devicetree-spec and perhaps boot-architecture lists. Present the
> > problem, not just the solution.
>
> Sure, though I think the problem has been discussed at length in a
> number of situations before (mailing lists, conferences, etc). Each
> time it seems like it ends up being too complicated and folks hit dead
> ends and stop trying to upstream. Downstream just keeps doing their
> own downstream things because there are tons of people all hitting the
> same problem and there's no upstream solution.
>
> IMO we need to start moving into the realm of solutions. I understand
> that upstream doesn't want to accept some poorly-thought-out scheme
> that will cause long-term grief, but at some point it feels like we
> need to accept something that's "not too bad" so that we can at least
> iterate from there.
>
> After re-reading all the above, it feels like we're not that far from
> a solution, though perhaps you'll read it all and say that you hate it
> and that we're not as close as I thought. ;-)

I've taken your advice and posted to the devicetree-spec and
boot-architecture lists. To connect anyone that was following this
conversation, see:

https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAD=FV=Ux7nGFnYEyX0cUL-9__BKnTYc+kAJjkF458ZnFS7zoJA@mail.gmail.com

I've done my best to include all the concerns / points that were
brought up in this thread.

-Doug