linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] Platform: x86: Add Chrome OS Laptop driver

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:	Fri, 2 Nov 2012 13:32:03 +0000
From:	Corentin Chary <corentin.chary@...il.com>
To:	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Cc:	Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>,
	"platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org" 
	<platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, olofj@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] Platform: x86: Add Chrome OS Laptop driver

On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Corentin Chary <corentin.chary@...il.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Corentin Chary
>>> <corentin.chary@...il.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Looks better, but I'm curious, what is the final purpose of this driver ?
>>>> What ABI will be exposed, who will use it ?
>>>>
>>>> If it is going to be bigger, it may be a good idea to convert it to a
>>>> real platform driver (platform_drivers/platform_device stuff).
>>>
>>> It's not a driver per se. It's platform glue that, based on the DMI
>>> table, registers platform and i2c devices (at this time only i2c
>>> devices).
>>>
>>> Unfortunately there's no way to do this nicely from userspace after
>>> boot, since there's limits to how much data you can provide with the
>>> simpler userspace-driven i2c probing protocol.
>>>
>>> So, there's no user-facing ABI on this, and no one is expected to use
>>> it from userspace. It's just there to make sure that the un-probably
>>> devices on this kind of hardware gets bound to drivers properly.
>>>
>>> If it's converted to a platform_driver, how do you expect that to
>>> probe, where would the platform_device be registered?
>>
>> I guess I would check dmi in the module init method, and then use the
>> probe callback of platform_create_bundle to do more probing if
>> necessary.
>
> Maybe I'm dense but I don't see how that could possibly be better than
> what the code does today. It would just add more overhead and clutter
> by creating a unnecessary dummy device/driver setup just to, in the
> end, register the same i2c devices.
>

Well that was the point of "If it is going to be bigger".
Of course, as long as it only register those i2c devices, it doesn't
really matter.

--
Corentin Chary
http://xf.iksaif.net
--
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/