linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 11/42] ARM: shmobile: Register PFC platform device

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, 27 Nov 2012 11:26:28 +0900
From:	Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
To:	Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
Cc:	Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@...asonboard.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
	Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@...esas.com>,
	Phil Edworthy <phil.edworthy@...esas.com>,
	Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <nobuhiro.iwamatsu.yj@...esas.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/42] ARM: shmobile: Register PFC platform device

On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 11:34:36AM +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Simon,
> 
> On Monday 26 November 2012 10:02:05 Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 01:43:15PM +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 21 November 2012 14:16:33 Simon Horman wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 03:27:12AM +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > > > Add arch code to register the PFC platform device instead of calling
> > > > > the driver directly. Platform device registration in the sh-pfc driver
> > > > > will be removed.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm not really sure that I understand the motivation for
> > > > moving platform device registration from the driver into
> > > > mach-shmobile. Could you explain this a little?
> > > 
> > > Sure.
> > > 
> > > The traditional device model associates a driver with a device. For
> > > historical reasons mach-shmobile doesn't define and register a platform
> > > device for PFC hardware but calls an initialization function directly in
> > > the PFC driver, passing it what is essentially platform data, including
> > > resources.
> > > 
> > > The PFC driver needs a struct device to pass to the pinctrl subsystem. As
> > > no struct device corresponding to the hardware is created by
> > > mach-shmobile, the driver creates one, registers it and registers itself
> > > as a platform driver. The probe function is thus called synchronously,
> > > with a valid struct platform_device.
> > > 
> > > This is a hack that can't support device tree based instantiation, as the
> > > platform device will be created when the platform is populated from the DT
> > > in that case. To support DT (and to remove the hack), I've moved platform
> > > device registration to mach-shmobile as it should be, like already done
> > > for all (or most, I haven't checked if there's no similar hacks in other
> > > drivers) the platform devices. This allows converting a board to DT by
> > > just adding the PFC device node in the DT and removing the platform
> > > device registration call in board code.
> > > 
> > > I hope this made the intend of this part of the patch series clear. If
> > > not, just tell me and I'll try to provide more explanations.
> > 
> > Thanks Laurent,
> > 
> > as it happens I was doing some work on pinmux and DT in as part of
> > my kzm9g series, so what you describe above now makes a lot of sense to me.
> > 
> > For this and all the other shmobile patches in this series:
> > 
> > Acked-by: Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
> 
> Thank you. I'll post a v2 of the patch set with board patches split per-SoC as 
> requested by Magnus to make backporting easier. As the shmobile will 
> significantly change, could you send me your ack on v2 ?
> 
> > BTW, my kzm9g work is not intended to conflict with your work in any way
> > and I apologise if it does. I was just trying to make something quickly to
> > allow kzm9g DT work to move a little further forward. I very much welcome
> > your work in this area and naturally the kzm9g will use it once it is ready.
> 
> No worries. I'll handle the conflict. Do you plan to push it for v3.8 or v3.9 
> ?

Its too late for 3.8, so I was thinking about 3.9.

I have rebased things on your v2 series and things seem to be working.
So I'm now dependent on your pinmux work.
--
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/