From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70E1CC004C9 for ; Tue, 7 May 2019 16:56:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30F552054F for ; Tue, 7 May 2019 16:56:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=chromium.org header.i=@chromium.org header.b="fvP0O3tZ" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727212AbfEGQ4U (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 May 2019 12:56:20 -0400 Received: from mail-lj1-f193.google.com ([209.85.208.193]:46480 "EHLO mail-lj1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726473AbfEGQ4T (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 May 2019 12:56:19 -0400 Received: by mail-lj1-f193.google.com with SMTP id h21so14932687ljk.13 for ; Tue, 07 May 2019 09:56:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=esZbZU1pgP8duus3WEzDEySF+/YyqE39bcTa0BgZfHg=; b=fvP0O3tZ7ZjnILeoVNXqpBW5oInlJpRKtMsHavAo8Xz6rGRg89S6GZWi4pGffqfCFg oatIXFLAoC9CKwk1ym8unSGXwAYeKchgsJsEKUm2XnsjPb9LqnjMjeafzahNU3X/YERf pCPdN8c31gCwwkI7LCI3zaZ1cxosDpm3CpW9c= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=esZbZU1pgP8duus3WEzDEySF+/YyqE39bcTa0BgZfHg=; b=ZM49TvrxVp0fo7p1rpTGvIp49sWtbFGNgpCv45oMa4lukr75T7C8/aX0vtUfw3h8ak TQfXKKcVqiuGoAUAePP0KtUfjY74cekAbQ4lTSa7MKObUDgCVUDhQ5MztLACLlfmaN2F h0BNnRSf0HXhuZL5C8HUJMIvOF+PUa0S6YsC/Oxu066UGPISywvo55eQHM4xgaoaBJRx YhzkIS1JOcZVHxYHqOeiWJenjKtTZAUHaJqiYttVnphiA6pg+j9ZUI+gIIMwn3U9ZqPA PwbXFKXUVyOaVWJecgo5YpBxDmd9dyumGGeMC1PGMqzqx1QPTZXjkoM3SFlUkgH0w0ye g2wA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWubI4B0fhyBhLomX+RMHZk06VnkHGwjP6h2IcDs4eqwNF3nbeD 8JdaSRYOHf1PM4QP7xOKlMxDPGVRrKw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyjTyZJ9aqAMxg5NK8qmc096hrVJYTZ0SiDoU4UhcV8+pO0itJeTJYFn2mbNW+2mq2jcrtSrA== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:3c06:: with SMTP id j6mr16326190lja.99.1557247694175; Tue, 07 May 2019 09:48:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf1-f50.google.com (mail-lf1-f50.google.com. [209.85.167.50]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j19sm3466097lfm.29.2019.05.07.09.48.12 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=AEAD-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 07 May 2019 09:48:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-f50.google.com with SMTP id d8so12344223lfb.8 for ; Tue, 07 May 2019 09:48:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:ac2:54b7:: with SMTP id w23mr821657lfk.139.1557247692296; Tue, 07 May 2019 09:48:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190503174730.245762-1-dianders@chromium.org> In-Reply-To: From: Brian Norris Date: Tue, 7 May 2019 09:48:00 -0700 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] pstore/ram: Improve backward compatibility with older Chromebooks To: Doug Anderson Cc: Kees Cook , Anton Vorontsov , "open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." , Julius Werner , Guenter Roeck , Matthias Kaehlcke , Colin Cross , Tony Luck , Linux Kernel Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 9:25 AM Doug Anderson wrote: > On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 2:40 PM Brian Norris wrote: > > The last part of the sentence technically isn't true -- the original > > bindings (notably, with no DT maintainer Reviewed-by) didn't specify > > where such a node should be found: > > > > 35da60941e44 pstore/ram: add Device Tree bindings > > > > so child-of-root used to be a valid location. But anyway, this code is > > just part of a heuristic for "old DT" (where later bindings clarified > > this), so it still seems valid. > > I agree that it was unclear in the past, but it is true that being > under the root node is not according to the _current_ upstream > bindings, right? ;-) Sure, I suppose. Although, given the general ABI policy around DT, it seems to me that something that was "according to" an old binding cannot really be made "no longer" according to the binding. It can be discouraged, and removed from new DTs, but it doesn't really become *wrong*. But our DT was definitely *not* according to even the (un-reviewed) merged binding. So I'm mostly mincing words here. Brian