linux-kernel - Re: Handling of modular boards

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <201205042039.25794.arnd@arndb.de>
Date:	Fri, 4 May 2012 20:39:25 +0000
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Wolfgang Denk <wd@...x.de>
Cc:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...b.de>, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Igor Grinberg <grinberg@...pulab.co.il>,
	linux-embedded@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: Handling of modular boards

On Friday 04 May 2012, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> In message <201205041934.08830.arnd@...db.de> you wrote:
> >
> > One idea that I've heard before is to put device tree fragments into the
> > kernel and dynamically add them to the device tree that was passed by the
> > boot loader whenever we detect the presence of a specific device.
> > This obviously means it works only for boards using DT for booting, but
> > it allows us to use some infrastructure that we already have.
> > 
> > Another idea was to put all the possible extensions into the device tree
> > for a given board and disable them by default, putting it into the
> > responsibility of the boot loader to enable the one that is actually
> > being used. This has serious scalibility problems when there are many
> > possible extensions and also relies more on the boot loader than I would
> > like.
> 
> On the other hand, some of the issues we're trying to solve here
> for the kernel are also present in the boot loader, so this needs to
> do this anyway - whether by inserting new or modifying (enabling or
> disabling) existing properties in the DT is not really relevant here.

I haven't seen a case where the add-on board is actually required
for booting. What examples are you thinking of?

	Arnd
--
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/