linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] pinctrl: Add Qualcomm TLMM driver

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:	Thu, 12 Dec 2013 20:09:30 +0100
From:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...ymobile.com>,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] pinctrl: Add Qualcomm TLMM driver

On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 2:42 AM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> On 12/10/13 00:10, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>> On Fri 06 Dec 13:40 PST 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>>> +config PINCTRL_MSM
>>>> +     bool
>>> Why not tristate?
>>>
>> I have a hard time seeing an situation where you would like to build a system
>> with this driver as a module; it would force almost the entire system to be
>> loaded at a later time...
>
> We're going to need to build everything but the essentials as modules
> for the multi-platform kernel because we're going to run into the
> problem where the kernel can't link anymore. Data heavy drivers such as
> this are  targets for that because they waste more space being built-in
> and they're not absolutely necessary to boot into an initrd that holds
> the modules for a particular device.

This is a quite generic problem rather than a pin control problem.

We're actually going to have to compile quite a few drivers into the
kernel as well, like all irqchips and all clock sources...

I think we have toyed with the idea of tagging code and data so
that it will be discarded on non-matched platforms, I have no
idea how that would look in practice :-(

There are quite a few pin control drivers compiled into any
present multiplatform kernels, so I wouldn't say that one
more or less hurts us today.

>>>> +#include <linux/pinctrl/pinctrl.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/pinctrl/pinmux.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/pinctrl/pinconf.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/pinctrl/machine.h>
>>> Are any of these includes actually necessary? Can't we just forward
>>> declare struct pinctrl_pin_desc?
>>>
>> None of them are needed in the current set of patches, as these are already
>> included in the c-files before including this.
>>
>> But the right set should be: platform_device.h and pinctrl.h.
>
> We should be able to get away with forward declaring the structs we care
> about. C files that include this header should be including the
> pinctrl.h header file anyway, no?

Patches accepted...

Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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/