| 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: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:33:29 +0200 From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> To: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, Emilio Lopez <emilio@...pez.com.ar>, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>, andriy.shevchenko@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, zhuzhenhua@...winnertech.com, shuge@...winnertech.com, linux-sunxi@...glegroups.com, kevin.z.m.zh@...il.com, sunny@...winnertech.com, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/8] ARM: sunxi: Split out the various machines into separate files On Wednesday 23 April 2014 15:28:29 Maxime Ripard wrote: > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 02:33:50PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Thursday 17 April 2014, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > This will allow to add per-SoC hooks more easily. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com> > > > --- > > > arch/arm/mach-sunxi/Makefile | 6 +- > > > arch/arm/mach-sunxi/restart.c | 104 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > arch/arm/mach-sunxi/restart.h | 20 ++++++ > > > arch/arm/mach-sunxi/sun4i.c | 36 ++++++++++ > > > arch/arm/mach-sunxi/sun5i.c | 37 ++++++++++ > > > arch/arm/mach-sunxi/sun6i.c | 49 +++++++++++++ > > > arch/arm/mach-sunxi/sun7i.c | 36 ++++++++++ > > > arch/arm/mach-sunxi/sunxi.c | 164 ------------------------------------------ > > > 8 files changed, 287 insertions(+), 165 deletions(-) > > > > This doesn't look like a move in the right direction, and I don't see > > the connection with the DMA driver. > > This is actually not adding any code at all, just reorganizing it. > > This was also something that would allow to have per-family > configuration options, and hence not select drivers like the pinctrl > one that are pretty huge if they're not needed. I don't mind having split Kconfig entries to control which drivers are used. It was more about the absolute growth in C source code lines above. > > Splitting out the restart code is good, but please complete this by > > moving it into a driver directory. My preferred location would be > > within the watchdog driver, since it's really the same registers. > > You can turn on the watchdog driver as built-in in the defconfig. > > While it's not ideal that you can end up without a restart function > > if the driver does not get loaded, I would still prefer that over > > having the driver in the mach-sunxi directory. > > Ok. The thing is, we don't have any watchdog driver for the A31 for > the moment, so the restart code will have to stay there. But I can > totally do that for the A10/A20. > > > An alternative would be to move the restart code into > > drivers/power/reset. > > That would be a good place for the A31 code then. Ok, good. > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/sunxi.c b/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/sunxi.c > > > deleted file mode 100644 > > > index 460b5a4962ef..000000000000 > > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/sunxi.c > > > > Instead of splitting up this file, I think it would be better to > > reduce the number of special hacks required per machine. Note that > > for arm64 we require platforms not to have any code outside of > > the drivers directory, and I'd like to get to the same situation > > for much of arch/arm/mach-* as well. > > I think it's fair. > > How would you enforce default clock parenting and/or rate then? See my other reply. Arnd -- 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