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: <53FE07BE.7000809@ahsoftware.de>
Date:	Wed, 27 Aug 2014 18:30:54 +0200
From:	Alexander Holler <holler@...oftware.de>
To:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>
CC:	Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jon Loeliger <jdl@....com>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
	"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 27.08.2014 18:22, schrieb Stephen Warren:
> On 08/27/2014 08:44 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:

>> It's not just optimisation but an important feature for new arm64 SoCs.
>> Given some Tegra discussions recently, in many cases the machine_desc
>> use on arm is primarily to initialise devices in the right order. If we
>> can solve this in a more deterministic way (other than deferred
>> probing), we avoid the need for a dedicated SoC platform driver (or
>> machine_desc) or workarounds like different initcall levels and explicit
>> DT parsing.
>
> A lot of the ordering is SW driver dependencies. I'm not sure how much
> of that can accurately be claimed as HW dependencies. As such, I'm not
> sure that putting dependencies into DT would be a good idea; it doesn't
> feel like HW data, and might well change if we restructure SW. It'd need
> some detailed research though.

Almost every phandle is a dependency, so the DT is already full with them.
--
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/