linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] omap changes for v2.6.39 merge window

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]

Date:	Wed, 30 Mar 2011 17:15:32 -0700
From:	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	David Brown <davidb@...eaurora.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] omap changes for v2.6.39 merge window

* Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk> [110330 16:57]:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 07:31:59PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> 
> > Still, because ARM is just a CPU architecture, those SOC vendors will 
> > always have something new to differenciate themselves from the other SOC 
> > vendors.  And that cannot be described in a table alone. The power 
> > management hardware from TI will still require separate _executable_ 
> > code from the Freescale one, or the Samsung one, or the Nvidia one, or 
> > the Qualcomm one, or the Marvell one, yada yada.  And I really don't 
> > want to see that code turned into some vendor provided buggy ACPI 
> > bytecode or similar.
> 
> To get rid of all the platform related stuff, I think you'd need some
> kind of bytecode to deal with some of the procedural stuff with various
> platforms.  Without bytecode, the only other way is to keep the stuff
> as C functions in the kernel and find some way of binding them to
> drivers through DT, which means we're still going to have platform
> specific C files littering the kernel.

The SoC specific code still needs to be different for things like PM,
but that's pretty small compared to the mux/clock/hwmod data on omaps.

Also I think we can make the PM code into loadable modules eventually.
 
> While I can see DT solving the "declare this data structure" problem,
> I believe that's only part of the issue.

Yup I agree there are other issues too.

> This is exactly why when DT was proposed as a miracle cure-all for ARM,
> I wanted to see DT on a real ARM platform rather than just ARM Ltd's
> simple and similar development boards.
> 
> Certainly, though, DT for ARM is progressing.

At least omap mux/clokc/hwmod data could come either from devicetree
or be a loadable kernel module for most entries.

Regards,

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/