linux-kernel - Re: (arm-)global platform device registration functions

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]

Message-ID: <20101230101540.GX14221@pengutronix.de>
Date:	Thu, 30 Dec 2010 11:15:40 +0100
From:	Uwe Kleine-König 
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: (arm-)global platform device registration functions

Hello Arnd,

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 11:03:31AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 29 December 2010 17:25:12 Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > some time ago I started to dynamically allocate platform_devices for
> > arm/plat-mxc.  For that purpose I added many functions, see
> > arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/devices-common.h [1].  Now arm/arch-mxs
> > want to do the same, so I wonder if it would be sensible to do something
> > like this more globally (either for arm or better kernel global).
> 
> Adding platform devices dynamically is definitely the right way forward
> for new platforms, as Greg explained recently. The imx_add_platform_device()
> function you have defined looks useful for this, and I guess it could
> be added globally, next to the existing platform_device_register_resndata,
imx_add_platform_device could be implemented as

	platform_device_register_resndata(NULL, name, id, res, num_resources, data, size_data)

in next[1] the imx variant got support to handle a dmamask.

> platform_device_register_data and platform_device_register_simple functions
> that we already have doing similar things.
> 
> I'm not convinced that the various wrappers you have on imx are the
> best solution, though I have not come up with anything better either ;-)
I came up with those because many machines (sharing the same SoC) share
the same devices.

> This will also get a lot easier once we have the ability to define
> devices in using dtc, because that takes care of the resources.
Well this is a matter of taste, I'm quite happy with the current
approach.

[1]
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/sfr/linux-next.git;a=blob;f=arch/arm/plat-mxc/devices.c;hb=e635401443d9d256a0bfd1ea7864ac56034c6dca
-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
--
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/