linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] dt: dependencies (for deterministic driver initialization order based on the DT)

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 14 May 2014 18:23:13 +0200
From:	Alexander Holler <holler@...oftware.de>
To:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>
CC:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jon Loeliger <jdl@....com>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] dt: dependencies (for deterministic driver initialization
 order based on the DT)

Am 14.05.2014 18:05, schrieb Grant Likely:
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Alexander Holler <holler@...oftware.de> wrote:
>> Am 14.05.2014 16:19, schrieb Grant Likely:
>>
>>
>>> Rather than a dtb schema change, for the most common properties (irqs,
>>> clocks, gpios), we could extract dependencies at boot time. I don't like
>>> the idea of adding a separate depends-on property because it is very
>>> easy to get it out of sync with the actual binding data (dtc is not the
>>> only tool that manipulates .dtbs. Firmware will fiddle with it too).
>>
>>
>> Then that stuff has to fiddle correct. Sorry, but trying to solve all
>> problems right from the beginning just leads to endless talks with no end
>> and nothing will happen at all because nobody aggrees how to start.
>
> I appreciate the problem that you're trying to solve and why you're
> using the dtc approach. My job is to poke at the solution and make
> sure it is going to be reliable. Making sure all users know how to
> fiddle with the new property correctly is not a trivial problem,
> especially when it is firmware that will not necessarily be updated.

The answer is just that they don't have to use this feature.

It is more meant as a long-term solution to fix for the problem of 
increasing hard-coded workarounds which all are trying to fix the 
initialization order of drivers. Hardware has become a lot more 
complicated than it was in the good old days, and I think the time is 
right trying to adopt the init-system to this new century instead of 
still adding workarounds here and there.

> I'm not saying flat out 'no' here, but before I merge anything, I have
> to be reasonably certain that the feature is not going to represent a
> maintenance nightmare over the long term.

The maintenance nightmare is already present in form of all the 
workarounds which are trying to fix the initialzation order necessary 
for modern hardware.

Regards,

Alexander

--
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/