linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/6] drivers/base: add bus for System-on-Chip devices

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: <20111017182542.GB14416@suse.de>
Date:	Mon, 17 Oct 2011 11:25:42 -0700
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>, jamie@...ieiles.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linus.walleij@...ricsson.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] drivers/base: add bus for System-on-Chip devices

On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 08:03:42PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 17 October 2011 09:16:16 Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 12:52:54PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> 
> > > +static ssize_t soc_info_get(struct device *dev,
> > > +                         struct device_attribute *attr,
> > > +                         char *buf);
> > > +
> > > +static DEVICE_ATTR(machine,  S_IRUGO, soc_info_get,  NULL);
> > > +static DEVICE_ATTR(family,   S_IRUGO, soc_info_get,  NULL);
> > > +static DEVICE_ATTR(soc_id,   S_IRUGO, soc_info_get,  NULL);
> > > +static DEVICE_ATTR(revision, S_IRUGO, soc_info_get,  NULL);
> > > +
> > > +static ssize_t soc_info_get(struct device *dev,
> > > +                         struct device_attribute *attr,
> > > +                         char *buf)
> > > +{
> > > +     struct soc_device *soc_dev =
> > > +             container_of(dev, struct soc_device, dev);
> > > +
> > > +     if (attr == &dev_attr_machine)
> > > +             return sprintf(buf, "%s\n", soc_dev->attr->machine);
> > > +     if (attr == &dev_attr_family)
> > > +             return sprintf(buf, "%s\n", soc_dev->attr->family);
> > > +     if (attr == &dev_attr_revision)
> > > +             return sprintf(buf, "%s\n", soc_dev->attr->revision);
> > > +     if (attr == &dev_attr_soc_id)
> > > +             return sprintf(buf, "%s\n", soc_dev->attr->soc_id);
> > > +
> > > +     return -EINVAL;
> > > +
> > > +}
> > 
> > If you move around things a bit here, you can save 4 lines of code,
> > please do so.
> 
> I don't think that works: the DEVICE_ATTR definitions require a prototype
> for the function, and the function compares the device attribute.

Ah, yeah, you are right.

> > > +struct soc_device {
> > > +     struct device dev;
> > > +     struct soc_device_attribute *attr;
> > > +};
> > 
> > Why is this needed to be defined here?  It should be in the .c file as
> > no external code needs to know what it looks like.
> 
> You also commented that the argument to soc_device_unregister should
> be a soc_device (as, consequently, the return type of soc_device_register).
> Agree with that comment, but it means that the definition of struct
> soc_device needs to remain visible in order to be used as the parent
> for other devices.

No it doesn't:
	struct device * soc_device_to_device(struct soc device *soc);

Anyway, what are you using this soc device to be the parent of?

greg k-h
--
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/