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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20140826095459.GB32315@leverpostej>
Date:	Tue, 26 Aug 2014 10:54:59 +0100
From:	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
Cc:	Alexander Holler <holler@...oftware.de>,
	"grant.likely@...aro.org" <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <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>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	"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)

On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:39:32AM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 02:19:19PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 08:19:00PM +0100, Alexander Holler wrote:
> > > Am 21.08.2014 16:02, schrieb Thierry Reding:
> > > 
> > > > Anyway, those are all fairly standard reasons for where deferred probe
> > > > triggers, and since I do like deferred probe for it's simplicity and
> > > > reliability I'd rather not try to work around it if boot time is all
> > > > that people are concerned about.
> > > 
> > > It's neither simple nor reliable. It's non deterministic brutforcing 
> > > while making it almost impossible to identify real errors.
> > 
> > It's horrible, yes.
> > 
> > > In my humble opinion the worst way to solve something. I'm pretty sure 
> > > if I would have suggest such a solution, the maintainer crowd would have 
> > > eaten me without cooking.
> > 
> > We didn't have a better workable solution at the time.
> 
> You make it sound like we've come up with a better workable solution in
> the meantime.

That wasn't the intention, but my sloppy wording does make it come
across that way.

> > Having a hack that got boards booting was considered better than not
> > having them boot.
> > I don't remember people being particularly enthralled by the idea.
> 
> Odd, I remember things quite differently.

Then perhaps my memory is faulty. :)

> Anyway, instead of going back and forth between "deferred probe is good"
> and "deferred probe is bad", how about we do something useful now and
> concentrate on how to make use of the information we have in DT with the
> goal to reduce the number of cases where deferred probing is required?

Certainly.

Mark.
--
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/