linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH, RFC] Earlier I2C initialization

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: <20080611225416.169574a0@hyperion.delvare>
Date:	Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:54:16 +0200
From:	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
To:	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
Cc:	Ryan Mallon <ryan@...ewatersys.com>, Uli Luckas <u.luckas@...d.de>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	i2c@...sensors.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] Earlier I2C initialization

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:27:09 -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> On Wednesday 11 June 2008, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:13:09 +1200, Ryan Mallon wrote:
> > >                               As David suggested, if i2c is needed early
> > > in enough cases, why not just move it early in the link order? My patch
> > > was just an alternative approach which mimics the current behaviour, but
> > > makes it possible to get any i2c driver early. Why not just mark all of
> > > the drivers/busses that get used on embedded devices as subsys_initcall,
> > > just in case somebody needs them early?
> > 
> > Because this is an abuse of subsys_initcall? I guess that was
> > acceptable when only a couple drivers were doing that, but making it
> > official sounds bad.
> 
> How would it be an abuse?  On those systems, I2C is a "system bus"
> and needs to be initialized early for the same reasons PCI gets set
> up very early on PC hardware.

But the pci subsystem doesn't make use of subsys_initcall(). Instead,
it is simply placed early in the link order.

That being said, I'm not sure if the comparison with the PCI subsystem
holds... I am under the impression that PCI bus handling doesn't
require dedicated drivers? At least I can't see any under drivers/pci.

> There's no rule saying that subsystem initialization may not include
> the essential drivers -- in this case, i2c_adapter drivers.  PCI hubs
> and bridges are certainly initialized very early, before module_init
> code runs...

Care to point me to actual code to backup this "certainly"?

> And in fact it seems a bit odd to think that initializing any bus
> subsystem shouldn't be allowed to include its bus adapters.  It's
> not as if the subsystem has completed initializiation until those
> adapters are usable!!

I think it makes a lot of sense to initialize the core of a subsystem
early, so that all devices and drivers can be registered. This doesn't
imply registering the hardware bus drivers too, even though in some
cases it is also needed. I doubt that whoever designed subsys_initcall
meant it to be used for all bus drivers, otherwise he/she would have
named it, say, busdrv_initcall.

But don't get me wrong: if subsys_initcall is the way to go, that's
alright with me, that's way less work than having to move drivers to
different directories and fixing the link order.

-- 
Jean Delvare
--
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/