linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] DT match helpers for initcalls and platform devices

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:	Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:26:22 +0100
From:	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
To:	Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] DT match helpers for initcalls and platform
 devices

On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 01:12:49AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> From: Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>
> 
> This series adds a couple of boilerplate helpers to match with DT for
> initcalls and platform device creation and probe. The goal here is to 
> remove more platform code out of arch/arm and eventually the machine
> descriptors.

I fear that this is a step backwards because it makes it easier for
people to do the wrong thing. We've been doing the same with interrupt
controllers and clocks. With those there's at least the argument that
they need to be available really early and therefore cannot use the
regular driver model. But for everything else, shouldn't we enforce
proper drivers to be written?

Perhaps if you can point me to some examples I could get more context
why and where this would be useful.

Thierry

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped