linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 13/15] x86/rtc: don't register rtc if we the DT blob

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: <20110112182929.GC6907@www.tglx.de>
Date:	Wed, 12 Jan 2011 19:29:29 +0100
From:	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
Cc:	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sodaville@...utronix.de,
	x86@...nel.org, dirk.brandewie@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 13/15] x86/rtc: don't register rtc if we the DT blob

* Grant Likely | 2011-01-11 17:02:24 [-0700]:

>> +static __init int have_DTB(void)
>> +{
>> +	if (initial_boot_params)
>> +		return 1;
>> +	return 0;
>> +}

>Not quite the right test.  For instance, OLPC has real openfirmware so
>initial_boot_params will be zero even though there is a fully
>populated device tree.  Should test the allnodes value instead.
Oh really? They do have a device tree and their initial_boot_params is
NULL? I assumed they boot via OF but I saw no evidence of the device
tree as it. In fact I noticed that they have a static PCI bus living in
arch/x86 and I assumed that is the place where their devices are comming
from.
However, this _could_ change the behavior of OLPC and they could lack an
RTC now if it is not comming via isa_pnp thing or via the device tree
(which had no bindings until recently).

>Also, this test is useful to more than just rtc I'm sure.  It could
>easily live in linux/of.h.
Okay.

>Finally one minor nit.  This is more verbose than it needs to be.  It
>could instead be:  "return allnodes != NULL;", and the __init is
>unnecessary on a static inline.

Okay. The static line has no __init just the non inline has __init :)

>g.

Sebastian
--
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/