linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] RFC: pinctrl: grab default handler with bus notifiers

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: <CACRpkdY-tye5LNOwxQ-XrjM-x9RffAvj-tPfsFQA3ZWOY8P-Vw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:03:40 +0100
From:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>,
	Anmar Oueja <anmar.oueja@...aro.org>,
	Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>, Benoit Cousson <b-cousson@...com>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
	Mitch Bradley <wmb@...mworks.com>,
	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>,
	Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
	Rickard Andersson <rickard.andersson@...ricsson.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RFC: pinctrl: grab default handler with bus notifiers

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Mark Brown
<broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 01:21:40PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 11/11/2012 05:22 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>
>> > Another solution that was discussed was whether to move
>> > the default pinctrl handle and state grab to the device
>> > core as an optional field in struct device itself, but
>> > I'd like to first propose this less intrusive mechanism.
>
>> I think doing that approach makes a lot more sense; wouldn't it
>> completely avoid the issues with deferred probe that this notifier-based
>> method can't solve? It would also be very much in line with e.g.
>> dev_get_regmap() - if every resource that a driver required were handled
>> like that, then deferred probe could be significantly isolated into the
>> driver core rather than in every driver...
>
> I have to say that I agree with this, notifiers seem to make life more
> complicated for limited gain.  Otherwise I guess we could enhance
> notifiers so that they're able to trigger deferrals?

OK I'll have to come up with a patch to the device core
instead... it'll be much simpler anyway and if both of you guys
can back it I guess Greg might be OK with it too.

Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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/