| 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: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 12:06:00 +0100 From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com> To: Oliver Schinagl <oliver@...inagl.nl>, Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com> CC: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Olliver Schinagl <oliver+list@...inagl.nl>, grant.likely@...aro.org, "rob.herring@...xeda.com" <rob.herring@...xeda.com>, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, dev@...ux-sunxi.org, maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com, ijc@...lion.org.uk, Richard Zhu <r65037@...escale.com>, Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ARM: sunxi: Add an ahci-platform compatible AHCI driver for the Allwinner SUNXi series of SoCs Hi, On 12/06/2013 10:12 AM, Oliver Schinagl wrote: > > On 06-12-13 10:01, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: >> Dear Tejun Heo, >> >> On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 08:23:12 -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: >> >>>> But again, point me (for dummies ;) in the right direction and I'll >>>> work on it with some help. >>> Richard and Shawn recently worked on ahci_imx. Can you guys please >>> talk with each other and figure out what can be done to share as much >>> as possible among these new platform-specific drivers? I'd really >>> like to see the common things factored out as much as possible with >>> only the actual hardware differences described for each device. >> Also, please Cc me on such discussions. I have a pending AHCI platform >> driver for another ARM SoC family. It is very similar to ahci_platform, >> but needs to do a few more things that are SoC specific (map an >> additional register area, and do some SoC-specific stuff with them). >> >> For the moment, we're left with two approaches: >> >> * Do what Oliver did, where the ahci_<foo> driver will do its own >> SoC-specific stuff, and then will register an additional >> platform_device to trigger the ->probe() of the generic >> ahci_platform driver. I must say I don't really like this solution, >> since it involves having two platform_device registered for the same >> piece of hardware (one platform_device to trigger the ->probe of >> ahci_<foo>, and another one to trigger the ->probe of ahci_platform). >> >> * Duplicate in ahci_<foo> the (relatively small) amount of code that >> is present in ahci_platform. >> >> From my point of view, ahci_platform should be turned into a small >> "library", that provides an API for ahci_<foo> drivers to 1/ do their >> own custom stuff and 2/ do the common ahci_platform stuff. >> >> This way we avoid the registration of two platform_device for the same >> piece of hardware, and we avoid the duplication of code. >> >> Want me to propose a RFC for this idea? > I've started to do what sdhci does with their pltfrm driver, assuming that's the right approach. Since i'm only dabbling and not always 100% sure what should or shouldn't be done, it may take a little while, but looks promising from my end ;) > > So is the sdhci-pltfrm approach the correct one? We still have ahci_* drivers, but ahci_platform.c won't be a driver in the sense that it is now anymore. Sounds good to me. May I suggest simply adding a new ahci_pltfrm driver for this and leaving the existing ahci_platform alone? Of course in the end we want the old ahci_platform to go away, but it is probably best to introduce the new one in parallel and then port things over 1 by 1 by people who can actually test the port :) Regards, Hans -- 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