linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] ARM: sunxi: Remove sun4i and sun7i machine definitions

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:	Mon, 28 Apr 2014 18:08:53 -0700
From:	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
	Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>,
	Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbaryshkov@...il.com>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	linux-sunxi@...glegroups.com,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org" <linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org>,
	"arm@...nel.org" <arm@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] ARM: sunxi: Remove sun4i and sun7i machine definitions

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 April 2014 17:04:36 Maxime Ripard wrote:
>>
>> -static void __init sunxi_dt_init(void)
>> -{
>> -       of_platform_populate(NULL, of_default_bus_match_table, NULL, NULL);
>> -}
>> -
>> -static const char * const sunxi_board_dt_compat[] = {
>> -       "allwinner,sun4i-a10",
>> -       "allwinner,sun5i-a10s",
>> -       "allwinner,sun5i-a13",
>> -       NULL,
>> -};
>> -
>> -DT_MACHINE_START(SUNXI_DT, "Allwinner A1X (Device Tree)")
>> -       .init_machine   = sunxi_dt_init,
>> -       .dt_compat      = sunxi_board_dt_compat,
>> -MACHINE_END
>> -
>>  static const char * const sun6i_board_dt_compat[] = {
>>         "allwinner,sun6i-a31",
>>         NULL,
>
> I'd like to hear more opinions on this. We could either rely
> on the generic code, or we could keep the entry with just
> the .dt_compat line and the name, so /proc/cpuinfo contains
> a meaningful platform name.
>
> Either approach works for me, but I think we should do this
> consistent across platforms. Olof, do you have an opinion?

In reality, today, most platforms still need some out-of-tree stuff
that usually goes into the mach directory on out of tree kernels. It
also gives a place to stick the Kconfig entries, it's been nice to
have them split out in per-platform Kconfigs instead of having them
all modify and conflict the shared one.

I know those aren't strong arguments to keep it, but given that all
other things are more or less equal, it's a good a reason as any.

But, I'm not picky either way.


-Olof
--
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/