linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/7] PM / Domain: Add struct device to genpd

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 9 Apr 2018 12:46:47 +0200
From:   Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:     Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
        Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] PM / Domain: Add struct device to genpd

On 9 April 2018 at 09:53, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> On 22-03-18, 11:18, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> On 22 March 2018 at 10:59, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
>> > On 22-03-18, 10:30, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> >> On 22 December 2017 at 08:26, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
>
>> >> > +       ret = device_add(&genpd->dev);
>> >>
>> >> What's the point of adding the device? Can we skip this step, as I
>> >> guess the opp core is only using the device as cookie rather actual
>> >> using it? No?
>> >
>> > We also use it for the OPP debugfs stuff, so that would be required I believe.
>>
>> Right, however, isn't that only using the dev_name(dev), which you
>> don't need to add the device to make use of.
>>
>> Or maybe I missing something around this...
>
> So I tested this bit. The code works fine even if the device isn't added
> (registered), but this looks a bit sloppy to attempt.
>
> Please let me know what would you prefer in this case, add the device or not.

Well, I don't know if there is policy of how to do this in general. Or
perhaps this can be considered as a special case as the device is only
going to be used as cookie (at least so far).

I suggest we keep it as simple as possible and *not* add (register) the device.

Kind regards
Uffe