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:	Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:28:27 +0900
From:	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc:	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...e.de>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Linux PM mailing list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/10] sh: Use struct syscore_ops instead of sysdev class and sysdev

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:12:20AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 07:23:48AM +0900, Paul Mundt wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 11:00:56PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
> 
> > > Which is what we need to get rid of. It does not make any sense on the
> > > global picture to have anything like that exported to userspace.
> 
> > So far I haven't heard any rationale for why it doesn't. Exporting CPU
> > state to userspace certainly makes sense, and the sysdev model has worked
> > reasonably for CPUs, memory nodes, etc.
> 
> FWIW it'd be really helpful to have CPUs (or at least SoCs) be regular
> struct devices for integration with the regulator API so we can have all
> things that might use a regulator (like DVFS) be struct devices but...
> 
Sure, that makes sense. The easiest would probably be to just replace the
struct cpu sysdev with a struct device pointer and fix up drivers/base/cpu.c
accordingly. The linux/cpu.h API is unfortunately rather coupled to the
idea of having a sysdev, but this is purely for attributes and attribute
groups and primarily impacts powerpc, so the conversion shouldn't be too
painful. For simple topology registration the bulk of the architectures
ultimately don't care what's backing the struct cpu within the sysfs
context.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ