linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] drivers/tty: Folding Android's keyreset driver in sysRQ

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: <20120831232234.GB22142@core.coreip.homeip.net>
Date:	Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:22:34 -0700
From:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:	Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
Cc:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	rdunlap@...otime.net, arve@...roid.com, kernel-team@...roid.com,
	john.stultz@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] drivers/tty: Folding Android's keyreset driver in
 sysRQ

On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 04:57:04PM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> On 12-08-31 04:41 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 11:02:27PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> >>>> Why do we need to involve a platform device and not use, for example, a module
> >>>> parameter, that could be set up from userspace?
> >>>
> >>> The platform device comes from the original design and was included to
> >>> minimise the amount of changes in code that make use of the current
> >>> keyreset driver.
> >>
> >> The platform device is IMHO the right answer. In this class of devices
> >> the stuff is compiled in, the userspace is Android, there are no modules
> >> and there is no reason for it to be configurable.
> > 
> > It does not matter if it is built in or not, /sys/module/XXX/parameters
> > is still there, and while havig it in kernel is "easy" you could as
> > easily stuff needed data into a sysfs attribute during booting.
> > 
> > And we should be able to get this from DT even without the platform
> > device (this was the next step, wasn't it?).
> 
> Correct - my hope was to get the main functionality accepted before
> adding DT support.  Do you think the lack of DT support is a blocker for
> acceptance ?  Please confirm.
> 

No, lack of DT is not a blocker, but I am unconvinced that we need
platform device.

Thanks,

-- 
Dmitry
--
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/