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  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:	Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:54:15 +0000
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	arve@...roid.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] goldfish: add the goldfish virtual bus

> Maybe drivers/bus would be more appropriate though. Every platform
> handles platforms differently, and x86 seems to be the only one that
> likes the model of putting stuff under drivers/platform.

I'm fine with that and I agree - it is a bus.

> __devinit/__devexit are going away, so you can skip adding them
> for new code.

I'll strip those out of the upstream version

> > +module_init(goldfish_pdev_bus_init);
> > +module_exit(goldfish_pdev_bus_exit);
> 
> The module_platform_driver() macro takes care of this.

Will change to that.

> 
> > +static struct resource goldfish_pdev_bus_resources[] = {
> > +	{
> > +		.start  = GOLDFISH_PDEV_BUS_BASE,
> > +		.end    = GOLDFISH_PDEV_BUS_BASE +
> > GOLDFISH_PDEV_BUS_END - 1,
> > +		.flags  = IORESOURCE_IO,
> > +	},
> > +	{
> > +		.start	= GOLDFISH_PDEV_BUS_IRQ,
> > +		.end	= GOLDFISH_PDEV_BUS_IRQ,
> > +		.flags	= IORESOURCE_IRQ,
> > +	}
> > +};
> > +
> > +struct platform_device goldfish_pdev_bus_device = {
> > +	.name = "goldfish_pdev_bus",
> > +	.id = -1,
> > +	.num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(goldfish_pdev_bus_resources),
> > +	.resource = goldfish_pdev_bus_resources
> > +};
> > +
> > +static int __init goldfish_init(void)
> > +{
> > +	return platform_device_register(&goldfish_pdev_bus_device);
> > +}
> > +device_initcall(goldfish_init);
> 
> This is the part that I think should actually be part of the
> architecture tree.

Thinking about it a bit I agree. We still end up needing an
architectural header for early console and the like eventually but it
does eliminate much of the rest.

I'll rework it that way.

Alan
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists