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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 12:45:42 +0300 From: Pantelis Antoniou <panto@...oniou-consulting.com> To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> Cc: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>, BenoƮt Coussno <b-cousson@...com>, Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>, Sourav Poddar <sourav.poddar@...com>, Russ Dill <Russ.Dill@...com>, Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>, Koen Kooi <koen@...cuitco.com>, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] pdev: Fix platform device resource linking Hi Greg, On Aug 6, 2013, at 12:36 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 10:53:40AM +0300, Pantelis Antoniou wrote: >> Platform device removal uncovered a number of problems with >> the way resources are handled in the core platform code. >> >> Resources now form child/parent linkages and this requires >> proper linking of the resources. On top of that the OF core >> directly creates it's own platform devices. Simplify things >> by providing helper functions that manage the linking properly. > > Ugh, the OF core shouldn't be creating platform devices. Well, yes, I > know it does that today, but ick, ick, ick. > Yep, ick, ick, ick is the correct form. >> Two functions are provided: >> >> platform_device_link_resources(), which links all the >> linkable resources (if not already linked). >> >> and platform_device_unlink_resources(), which unlinks all the >> resources. > > Why would anyone need to call this? I'm getting the feeling that OF > should just have it's own bus of devices to handle this type of mess. > ACPI is going through the same rewrite for this same type of problem > (they did things differently.) I suggest you work with the ACPI > developers to so the same thing they are, to solve it correctly for > everyone. > It's the same problem really. Another bus type might not fly well. The same device driver should be (in theory) be made to work unchanged either on an OF/ACPI/Fex( :) ) setup. What would it take to move all this into driver core? > thanks, > > greg k-h Regards -- Pantelis -- 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