linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [RFC v3] OF: OpenFirmware bindings for the mmc

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, 5 Jun 2008 11:36:09 -0600
From:	"Grant Likely" <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
To:	avorontsov@...mvista.com
Cc:	"Pierre Ossman" <drzeus-mmc@...eus.cx>,
	"David Brownell" <dbrownell@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
	"Jochen Friedrich" <jochen@...am.de>,
	"Segher Boessenkool" <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
	"Gary Jennejohn" <garyj@...x.de>,
	"Guennadi Liakhovetski" <g.liakhovetski@....de>,
	linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC v3] OF: OpenFirmware bindings for the mmc_spi driver

On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Anton Vorontsov
<avorontsov@...mvista.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 10:45:17AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Anton Vorontsov
>> <avorontsov@...mvista.com> wrote:
>> > Here is v3. I'm out of ideas if you won't like it. :-)
>> >
>> > v3:
>> > - Now these bindings are using bus notifiers chain, thus we adhere to the
>> >  spi bus.
>> >
>> >  By the way, this scheme (IMO) looks good for I2C devices which needs
>> >  platform_data extracted from the device tree too (Cc'ing Jochen).
>> >
>> > - Plus changed the OF bindings themselves, implemented voltage-range
>> >  property. (Pierre, please take a look at vddrange_to_ocrmask(). I
>> >  wonder if you would like this in the MMC core instead, with a kernel
>> >  doc, of course.)
>> >
>> > v2:
>> > - Bindings were adhered to the MMC_SPI driver. Withdrawn by Pierre Ossman.
>>
>> Personally I think your v2 was better, and if I'm interpreting
>> Pierre's comments correctly I think his main point is that instead of
>> using the 'stock' probe/remove hooks for the spi mmc driver, the
>> driver should be mildly reworked to provide a common block of code
>> that can be used by both the OF and non-OF versions of the
>> probe/remove routines.  I also think that is the way to go.
>
> Well, I mentioned the usb_add_hcd()-alike approach for the mmc_spi
> host... The absence of enthusiasm I equaled to "no".
>
> Heh.

I'm allergic to USB HCD code; I was probably having convulsions under my desk.

> p.s.
> Btw, you forgot another downside of v2 approach: struct spi_driver
> duplication... Not sure if everyone will be happy about it.
>
> Though, v2 is only version where we can make modular OF_MMC_SPI.

I think we've got our wires crossed.  I'm not referring to the option
of an of_mmc_spi driver registering an mmc_spi device (which can then
be probed by the mmc_spi_driver).  I'm referring to refactoring the
probe/remove code so that common stuff is callable by both the mmc_spi
and of_mmc_spi drivers without the oddity of the of_mmc_spi probe hook
calling the mmc_spi probe hook.

Cheers,
g.

-- 
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
--
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/