linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] ARM: ux500: Move DMA40 platform data includes file out to include/

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, 9 Apr 2013 11:35:11 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linus.walleij@...ricsson.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] ARM: ux500: Move DMA40 platform data includes file out to include/

On Tuesday 09 April 2013, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> 
> > On Monday 08 April 2013, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > The pin names for DB8500 based platforms need to be moved out of
> > > ux500 platform data and into the new proper location in include/
> > > linux/platform_data/. This way we an reference them from other
> > > external locations, such as the main DMA50 driver(s).
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
> > 
> > Hmm, not sure about this one. The slave numbers are not really platform_data
> > and I think they should not be exposed to drivers. It makes sense to
> > keep the numbers for the memcpy channels in the driver itself as they
> > are hardwired in the driver, but the slave channels should stay in the
> > platform I think.
> 
> Just looking at this again now. So you're right in that the main
> reason for moving these out of platform code and into the system-wide
> platform data area is for the memcpy channels. However, I'd prefer to
> keep the channel allocation enum fully contiguous rather than
> splitting them out.
> 
> The channels are only exposed to the one external driver which
> includes them, and that's the D40 driver.
> 
> How against this move are you?

I think it's a move in the wrong direction. If you think we should keep the
knowledge of which channels are used for memcpy outside of the driver,
I would prefer you to drop the the first two patches, which implies that
we will eventually pass that information using DT properties in order get
rid of the auxdata.

	Arnd
--
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/