linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC v2 16/16] ARM: zynq: Don't call of_clk

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:	Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:21:28 +0200
From:	Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC:	Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>,
	Soren Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@...inx.com>,
	Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
	Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 16/16] ARM: zynq: Don't call of_clk_init()

On 08/29/2013 03:37 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 August 2013, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
>> @@ -58,10 +57,10 @@ static void __init zynq_init_machine(void)
>>         of_platform_bus_probe(NULL, zynq_of_bus_ids, NULL);
>>  }
>>  
>> -static void __init zynq_timer_init(void)
>> +static void __init zynq_init_irq(void)
>>  {
>> +       irqchip_init();
>>         zynq_slcr_init();
>> -       clocksource_of_init();
>>  }
>>  
>>  static struct map_desc zynq_cortex_a9_scu_map __initdata = {
>> @@ -104,8 +103,8 @@ static const char * const zynq_dt_match[] = {
>>  DT_MACHINE_START(XILINX_EP107, "Xilinx Zynq Platform")
>>         .smp            = smp_ops(zynq_smp_ops),
>>         .map_io         = zynq_map_io,
>> +       .init_irq       = zynq_init_irq,
>>         .init_machine   = zynq_init_machine,
>> -       .init_time      = zynq_timer_init,
>>         .dt_compat      = zynq_dt_match,
>>         .restart        = zynq_system_reset,
>>  MACHINE_END
> 
> It looks like we are not getting any closer to removing all callbacks here,
> since you add one in order to remove another, and after the patch we do
> more things "early", which we try to avoid. I think we're better off without
> this particular patch.

Is there any plan to remove all of them?
I expect that on almost all platforms it is a need to have at least one
early hook to be able to setup things.

Thanks,
Michal


--
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/