linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] drivers:staging:ti-st: patches

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: <AANLkTik7bzRMfko0sqgVuJh-dkb_LMz4dcnK2UvLiek=@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:37:02 +0530
From:	Pavan Savoy <pavan_savoy@...com>
To:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
Cc:	gregkh@...e.de, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] drivers:staging:ti-st: patches

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com> wrote:
> On 07/22/10 21:56, Pavan Savoy wrote:
>> Randy,
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 1:23 AM, Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 05:32:04 -0500 pavan_savoy@...com wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: Pavan Savoy <pavan_savoy@...com>
>>>>
>>>> The following patches cleanup bit of a mess and also adds functionality to protocol drivers.
>>>> with the 3rd patch now providing context to even the protocol drivers, the single device limit
>>>> or support for multiple devices would be easier to implement.
>>>>
>>>> These patches depend on the previously submitted
>>>> 0001-drivers-staging-ti-st-make-use-of-linux-err-codes.patch
>>>> commit d39d49b393d94f4137cee4f64526a4695352f183
>>>>
>>>> Pavan Savoy (3):
>>>>   drivers:staging:ti-st: smarten, reduce logs
>>>>   drivers:staging:ti-st: cleanup code comments
>>>>   drivers:staging:ti-st: give proto drivers context
>>>>
>>>>  drivers/staging/ti-st/bt_drv.c  |   23 +++++---
>>>>  drivers/staging/ti-st/st.h      |   52 +++++++++--------
>>>>  drivers/staging/ti-st/st_core.c |  118 +++++++++++++++++++--------------------
>>>>  drivers/staging/ti-st/st_core.h |   74 +++++++++++++++++--------
>>>>  drivers/staging/ti-st/st_kim.c  |   73 ++++++++++++++----------
>>>>  drivers/staging/ti-st/st_kim.h  |   77 ++++++++++++++++---------
>>>>  drivers/staging/ti-st/st_ll.c   |    4 +-
>>>>  drivers/staging/ti-st/st_ll.h   |    9 +++-
>>>>  8 files changed, 255 insertions(+), 175 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have reported this error a few times.  Where is the patch for it??
>>>
>>> ERROR: "st_get_plat_device" [drivers/staging/ti-st/st_drv.ko] undefined!
>>
>>
>> Yes, on one of the earlier patch sets, I had mentioned that the ST
>> driver being a platform device, needs definition in any of the
>> arch/XX/mach-XX/board-XX.c or devices.c or somewhere...
>>
>> and hence it is in that board-XX.c file that the symbol
>> st_get_plat_device needs to be exported, the reason for that being,
>>
>> ST driver being both a TTY ldisc driver and platform driver, in TTY
>> contexts it would need to refer to platform driver's data. So it does
>> a st_get_plat_device which returns the platform device structure, and
>> then does a dev_getdrvdata from it.
>>
>> here's a snippet of code ...
>> /*
>>  * ST related functions related functions
>>  */
>> #include <linux/platform_device.h>
>>
>> long gpios[] = { 55, -1, -1 };
>> static struct platform_device ti_st_device = {
>>         .name           = "kim",
>>         .id             = -1,
>>         .dev.platform_data      = &gpios,
>> };
>>
>> struct platform_device *st_get_plat_device(void)
>> {
>>         return &ti_st_device;
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(st_get_plat_device);
>>
>> static __init int add_ti_st_device(void)
>> {
>>         platform_device_register(&ti_st_device);
>>         dev_info(&ti_st_device.dev,"registered platform TI ST device\n");
>>
>>         return 0;
>> }
>> device_initcall(add_ti_st_device);
>>
>>
>> We have that in our local trees in arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-sdp4430.c
>
> Thanks for the explanation.
>
> Is the driver platform-specific?
> E.g., should it not even be built on x86?

Yes. Requirement of the hardware is very much a must.
However it is a separate peripheral (WiLink 7 - uart interfaced), may
be there is a x86 platform with this - but certainly not desktops.

on linux-next, I generally put in that st_dev.c file for x86 - verify
whether it builds as a module, inserts/rmmod, basic other
functionalities (which doesn't involve response from chip..)
But verify full functionality on board which constitutes that.

> --
> ~Randy
> *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
>
--
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/