linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] remoteproc: block premature rproc booting

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:	Tue, 05 Jun 2012 20:25:03 -0700
From:	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
To:	Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] remoteproc: block premature rproc booting

On 06/05/12 03:57, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> What about using a separate file for the resource table ?
>
> That should be very easy to support, and may make life easier for you
> in the long term.
>
> Resource tables tend to change in time, and hard coding it in the
> kernel doesn't sound ideal (both in terms of development overhead, and
> kernel-firmware backward and forward compatibility).

Thanks. I'll look into that as that seems feasible.

> Does the below work for you (sans the OMAP terminology ;) ?
>
> root@...p4430-panda:/sys/bus/platform/drivers/omap-rproc# echo
> omap-rproc.1 > unbind
> [  471.376556] remoteproc remoteproc0: releasing ipu_c0
> root@...p4430-panda:/sys/bus/platform/drivers/omap-rproc# echo
> omap-rproc.1 > bind
> [  478.219177] remoteproc remoteproc0: ipu_c0 is available
> [  478.224639] remoteproc remoteproc0: Note: remoteproc is still under
> development and considered experimental.
> [  478.235015] remoteproc remoteproc0: THE BINARY FORMAT IS NOT YET
> FINALIZED, and backward compatibility isn't yet guaranteed.
> [  478.325347] remoteproc remoteproc0: registered virtio0 (type 7)
> [  478.331848] remoteproc remoteproc0: registered virtio1 (type 3)
>
> This way user space can unbind a specific remote processor (which will
> also trigger unbinding the entire device hierarchy below it, i.e. all
> rpmsg/virtio devices).

This is great! I finally see how bind/unbind is useful.

What if I don't want to boot the device at kernel start-up? Do I have to
make it a module then?

-- 
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.

--
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/