| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20080709112426.GN8489@trinity.fluff.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 12:24:26 +0100
From: Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>
To: Dmitry <dbaryshkov@...il.com>
Cc: Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk, sameo@...nedhand.com
Subject: Re: [patch 4/4] MFD: Change mfd platform device usage to wrapper platform_device
On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 03:15:47PM +0400, Dmitry wrote:
> 2008/7/9 Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>:
> > This patch changes the mfd core behaviour to wrapper the platform_device
> > it creates in an struct mfd_device which contains the information
> > about the cell that was created.
> >
> > 1) The creation of the resource list and then passing it to the
> > platform_device_add_resources() causes the allocation of a
> > large array on the stack as well as copying the source data
> > twice (it is copied from the mfd_cell to the temporary array
> > and then copied into the newly allocated array)
> >
> > 2) We can wrapper the platform_device into an mfd_device and use
> > that to do the platform_device and resource allocation in one
> > go to reduce the failiure.
> >
> > Note, is there actually any reason to pass the sub devices any
> > information about the cell they are created from? The mfd core
> > already makes the appropriate resource adjustments and anything
> > else like clocks should be exported by the clock drivers?
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>
>
>
> NAK.
> 0) It was discussed yesterday on the list and the decision was to go
> in a different way.
> I've provided a bit cleaner patch with the same idea, but then we
> decided to go in a bit different way.
> 1) I prefer patch by Mike Rapoport which is more clear and goes in a
> more correct way.
How "more correct", whilst the patch by Mike makes the platform data
be passed from the cell, there is no longer any way to get from the
platform device to the mfd_cell...
The current driver is being inefficent in the way it creates resources
on the stack and then calls a routine that does an kalloc/memcpy on
the resources.
> 2) Please examine the tmio-nand driver (was here on the list and on
> linux-mtd). It uses the mfd_cell
> to call hooks from the "host" driver (tc6393xb, more to be added soon).
The one posted in [1] does not call these hooks at-all, can ou please
explain why these hooks are needed in addition to the ones already
available in the platform device driver?
[1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2008-June/022137.html
> >
> > Index: linux-2.6.26-rc9-next20080709/include/linux/mfd/core.h
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.26-rc9-next20080709.orig/include/linux/mfd/core.h 2008-07-09 10:46:23.000000000 +0100
> > +++ linux-2.6.26-rc9-next20080709/include/linux/mfd/core.h 2008-07-09 11:14:55.000000000 +0100
> > @@ -18,8 +18,6 @@
> >
> > /*
> > * This struct describes the MFD part ("cell").
> > - * After registration the copy of this structure will become the platform data
> > - * of the resulting platform_device
> > */
> > struct mfd_cell {
> > const char *name;
> > @@ -33,9 +31,21 @@ struct mfd_cell {
> > const struct resource *resources;
> > };
> >
> > +struct mfd_device {
> > + struct platform_device pdev;
> > + struct mfd_cell *cell;
> > + struct resource resources[0];
> > +};
> > +
> > +static inline struct mfd_device *to_mfd_device(struct device *dev)
> > +{
> > + struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(dev);
> > + return container_of(pdev, struct mfd_device, pdev);
> > +}
> > +
> > static inline struct mfd_cell *mfd_get_cell(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > {
> > - return (struct mfd_cell *)pdev->dev.platform_data;
> > + return container_of(pdev, struct mfd_device, pdev)->cell;
> > }
> >
> > extern int mfd_add_devices(struct platform_device *parent,
> > Index: linux-2.6.26-rc9-next20080709/drivers/mfd/mfd-core.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.26-rc9-next20080709.orig/drivers/mfd/mfd-core.c 2008-07-09 10:59:54.000000000 +0100
> > +++ linux-2.6.26-rc9-next20080709/drivers/mfd/mfd-core.c 2008-07-09 11:09:59.000000000 +0100
> > @@ -15,28 +15,41 @@
> > #include <linux/platform_device.h>
> > #include <linux/mfd/core.h>
> >
> > +static void mfd_dev_release(struct device *dev)
> > +{
> > + struct mfd_device *mdev = to_mfd_device(dev);
> > +
> > + kfree(mdev);
> > +}
> > +
> > static int mfd_add_device(struct platform_device *parent,
> > const struct mfd_cell *cell,
> > struct resource *mem_base,
> > int irq_base)
> > {
> > - struct resource res[cell->num_resources];
> > + struct resource *res;
> > + struct mfd_device *mdev;
> > struct platform_device *pdev;
> > int ret = -ENOMEM;
> > int r;
> >
> > - pdev = platform_device_alloc(cell->name, parent->id);
> > - if (!pdev)
> > + mdev = kzalloc(sizeof(struct mfd_device) +
> > + sizeof(struct resource) * cell->num_resources,
> > + GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!mdev)
> > goto fail_alloc;
> >
> > - pdev->dev.parent = &parent->dev;
> > + mdev->cell = cell;
> > + mdev->pdev.dev.parent = &parent->dev;
> >
> > - ret = platform_device_add_data(pdev,
> > - cell, sizeof(struct mfd_cell));
> > - if (ret)
> > - goto fail_device;
> > + pdev = &mdev->pdev;
> > + res = &mdev->resources;
> > +
> > + device_initialise(&pdev->dev);
> > + pdev->id = parent->id;
> > + pdev->name = cell->name;
> > + pdev->release = mfd_device_release;
> >
> > - memzero(res, sizeof(res));
> > for (r = 0; r < cell->num_resources; r++) {
> > res[r].name = cell->resources[r].name;
> > res[r].flags = cell->resources[r].flags;
> >
> > --
> >
>
>
>
> --
> With best wishes
> Dmitry
--
--
Ben
Q: What's a light-year?
A: One-third less calories than a regular year.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists