linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv9 03/18] TEMP: OMAP3xxx: hwmod data: add PRM hwmod

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: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1110131047110.24155@utopia.booyaka.com>
Date:	Thu, 13 Oct 2011 10:51:54 -0600 (MDT)
From:	Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>
To:	"Cousson, Benoit" <b-cousson@...com>
cc:	"Kristo, Tero" <t-kristo@...com>,
	"linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv9 03/18] TEMP: OMAP3xxx: hwmod data: add PRM hwmod

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Paul Walmsley wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Oct 2011, Cousson, Benoit wrote:
> 
> > On 10/11/2011 1:26 AM, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> > > On Tue, 11 Oct 2011, Cousson, Benoit wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In fact the device name does not have to match the hwmod name. So we 
> > > > can just create an "omap2_prm" omap_device for OMAP2, "omap3_prm" 
> > > > omap_device for OMAP3... That will allow the relevant PRM driver to 
> > > > be bound to the proper device.
> > > 
> > > Incidentally, given that we would be using the hwmod name and the version
> > > number to determine the appropriate omap_device name, what IP version
> > > numbers should we assign to these PRM IP blocks for different SoCs?
> > 
> > It can just be 1, 2 and 3... The idea is just to differentiate the IP for each
> > OMAP.
> 
> So those are basically arbitrary?  Something is not clear here.
> 
> In the current hwmod design, IP blocks with different interfaces were 
> intended to be uniquely identified by the hwmod name alone.  That is why 
> omap_hwmod_lookup() only takes a 'name' parameter.
> 
> If I understand what you want to do, you wish to change this to uniquely 
> identify them by a (name, interface version number) tuple.
> 
> I don't have a problem with this in theory, but it implies some changes to 
> the existing model.  Specifically:
> 
> - we'll need to add an interface version number to the struct omap_hwmod
> 
> - we'll need to modify omap_hwmod_lookup() to take an interface version 
> number
> 
> - the "ti,hwmod" DT binding that you proposed earlier will need to include 
> an interface version number

Hmm, reflecting on this further, is your intention to bind drivers to 
hwmods by the struct omap_hwmod_class instead?

If we define that "rev" field as the interface version number, that should 
probably work.

So then in C struct format, in a platform_device system, the mapping table 
would basically become

struct omap_hwmod_driver_map {
	const char *class_name;
	const u32 class_rev;
	const char *platform_device_name;
}

- Paul
--
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/