linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Open Firmware device tree virtual filesystem

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]

Message-Id: <1167774438.6165.87.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Wed, 03 Jan 2007 08:47:18 +1100
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devel@...top.org,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de,
	Mitch Bradley <wmb@...mworks.com>, jg@...top.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Open Firmware device tree virtual filesystem


> All should converge on the same interface.  That does not
> ab initio mean we should converge on what you currently
> have (although that might eventually be that case).

Well, Dave and I will happen to be in the same place in a few weeks for
LCA so we might spend some time having a look there if we don't have any
better to do :-)

> Leaving aside the issue of in-memory or not, I don't think
> it is realistic to think any completely common implementation
> will work for this -- it might for current SPARC+PowerPC+OLPC,
> but more stuff will be added over time...

And ? I don't see why a mostly common implementations wouldn't work,
provided that we provide hooks in the right place.

It's pretty clear to me that the actual construction of the in-memory
tree will remain platform specific (powerpc has this flattened format
used for the trampoline for example and so far, I don't think other
platforms plan to use it, though it might be a good idea too :-) sparc
has "issues" related to firmwares that aren't quite OF, etc...)

But it's also clear that the in-kernel representation, accessors and
filesystem could/should be totally identical, including all we build on
top, like prom_parse, of_device/of_platform device stuff etc.. (for
which I need to re-sync with davem too btw, as he did some fixes that I
didn't backport to powerpc... sigh)

The other -one- thing that has to be different is the write back for
properties that can be changed (/options typically) where the write back
mecanism is definitely platform specific.

Ben.


-
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/