linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 2/5] ARM: OMAP: omap_device: add a method to set iommu private archdata

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:	Tue, 04 Oct 2011 11:15:59 -0700
From:	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>
To:	Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>
Cc:	linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Hiroshi DOYU <Hiroshi.DOYU@...ia.com>,
	Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
	Joerg Roedel <Joerg.Roedel@....com>,
	iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Cousson Benoit <b-cousson@...com>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/5] ARM: OMAP: omap_device: add a method to set iommu private archdata

Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com> writes:

> Hi Kevin,
>
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 1:53 AM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com> wrote:
>> Benoit did just this in preparation for DT.
>>
>>       http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=131672480111927&w=2
>>
>> Will that meet your needs?
>
> It's almost there, but not entirely.
>
> Benoit's alloc/delete functions focus on the omap_device part, leaving
> the handling of the platform device (allocation and pdata setting) to
> omap_device_build_ss(), which at the same time registers the pdev.
>
> I'd need to split omap_device_build_ss() into two: an alloc() part
> which does everything but registering the pdev, and a register() part.
> Users will first call alloc(), manually set archdata members, and then
> call the register() part.
>
> Something like this (compile-tested only, based on Benoit's
> for_3.2/4_omap4_dt_early_devices branch):

[...]

> That's the idea; please tell me how you'd like to see this go forward
> (there are at least several personal-taste issues here, e.g., naming:
> now we have two sets of alloc/delete functions which have different
> semantics) 

The approach is OK with me, but I'm a bit torn about whether or not to
merge this since the need for this should go away when converting to DT.
Is anyone working on IOMMU DT description?

I guess if I do merge this, we can also clean this up significantly
after all devices are converted to DT.

> and which branch would you like me to base this work off of
> (not sure if Benoit's patches already went into your
> for_3.2/omap_device branch) and I'll respin this patch properly.

Unless it has other dependencies on Benoit's further DT patches, you can
base this on my for_3.2/omap_device-2 branch which includes Benoit's
alloc changes.

Kevin
--
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/