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: <20070102.140749.104035927.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Tue, 02 Jan 2007 14:07:49 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	segher@...nel.crashing.org
Cc:	benh@...nel.crashing.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	devel@...top.org, jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de, wmb@...mworks.com,
	jg@...top.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Open Firmware device tree virtual filesystem

From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 22:37:32 +0100

> 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...

I see nothing supporting this IMHO bogus claim.

If you can traverse the device tree using OFW calls, you
can do it to build the in-kernel copy of the tree too.

How the tree is populated, etc., is not an issue for the
common code, for sure.  Each platform does that in whatever
way is appropriate.

But the tree traversal, getting property values, etc. is indeed
a task for the common code and that is exactly what Ben is
suggesting.
-
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/