linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] omap: add hwspinlock device

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 26 Oct 2010 12:06:46 -0700
From:	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
To:	Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>
Cc:	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...prootsystems.com>,
	Balaji T K <balajitk@...com>,
	"Kamat, Nishant" <nskamat@...com>, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	Benoit Cousson <b-cousson@...com>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	Hari Kanigeri <h-kanigeri2@...com>, Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] omap: add hwspinlock device

* Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com> [101026 04:45]:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com> wrote:
> >> if you feel that (2) is justifiable/desirable, I would be more
> >> than happy to submit that version.
> >
> > Yes (2) please. I would assume there will be more use of this. And then
> > we (or probably me again!) don't have to deal with cleaning up the drivers
> > again in the future.
> 
> Sounds good.
> 
> >> Or do you mean a variation of (2) with only the specific locking bits
> >> coming from pdata func pointers ? I guess that in this case we just
> >> might as well go with the full (2).
> >
> > Yes variation of (2) where you only pass the locking function via
> > platform data would be best.
> 
> It feels a bit funky to me because we would still have code that is
> omap-specific inside the "common" probe()/remove() calls.
> 
> I suggest to move everything that is omap-specific to a small omap
> module that, once probed, would register itself with the common
> hwspinlock framework (after initializing its hardware).
> 
> That small platfom-specific module probably doesn't have to sit in the
> arch/ folder; we can follow established conventions like
> mmc/i2c/gpio/spi/etc..
> 
> With that in hand, the hwspinlock would really be hardware-agnostic,
> and then applying s/omap_hwspin/hwspin/ would be justified.
> 
> Does this sound reasonable to you ?

Sounds good to me.

Tony
--
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/