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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2014 21:14:04 -0700 From: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org> To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>, Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>, "linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org>, Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>, Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@...el.com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>, Robert Moore <robert.moore@...el.com>, "linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, Charles Garcia-Tobin <Charles.Garcia-Tobin@....com>, Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>, Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>, Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@....com>, Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@....com>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, "graeme.gregory@...aro.org" <graeme.gregory@...aro.org>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Sudeep Holla <Sudeep.Holla@....com>, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH for Juno 1/2] net: smsc911x add support for probing from ACPI On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 19:11:44 +0200, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote: > On Monday 01 September 2014 18:04:47 Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 04:06:00PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote: > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI > > > +/* Configure some sensible defaults for ACPI mode */ > > > +static int smsc911x_probe_config_acpi(struct smsc911x_platform_config *config, > > > + acpi_handle *ahandle) > > > +{ > > > + if (!ahandle) > > > + return -ENOSYS; > > > + > > > + config->phy_interface = PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_MII; > > > + > > > + config->flags |= SMSC911X_USE_32BIT; > > > + > > > + config->irq_polarity = SMSC911X_IRQ_POLARITY_ACTIVE_HIGH; > > > + > > > + config->irq_type = SMSC911X_IRQ_TYPE_PUSH_PULL; > > > + > > > + return 0; > > > +} > > > +#else > > > > I don't like this and it shows issues we have with ACPI on certain ARM > > platforms. You hard-code these values to match the Juno platform. What > > if we get another SoC which has different configuration here? For DT, we > > have the smsc911x_probe_config_dt() which reads the relevant information > > from DT. I think this kind of configuration would be more suitable as > > _DSD properties and sharing the similar names with DT (but we go back to > > the question about who's in charge of the _DSD properties). > > Good point, I totally missed that. > > There is of course the possibility to set those values based on the > acpi_device_id, but that is exactly the part that _DSD is trying to > avoid. These are merely defaults. DSD parsing, when implemented, would be override these default values. > > > > static int smsc911x_drv_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > > { > > > struct device_node *np = pdev->dev.of_node; > > > + acpi_handle *ahandle = ACPI_HANDLE(&pdev->dev); > > > struct net_device *dev; > > > struct smsc911x_data *pdata; > > > struct smsc911x_platform_config *config = dev_get_platdata(&pdev->dev); > > > @@ -2436,6 +2464,9 @@ static int smsc911x_drv_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > > } > > > > > > retval = smsc911x_probe_config_dt(&pdata->config, np); > > > + if (retval) > > > + retval = smsc911x_probe_config_acpi(&pdata->config, ahandle); > > > + > > > > In most of the ACPI patches so far we check for ACPI first with DT as a > > fall-back if ACPI is not enabled. This changes here. > > Does this really make a difference? Nope. Only one of DT or ACPI will be matched. > > > I would prefer > > something which probes only ACPI if the ACPI is enabled (run-time, not > > config) otherwise DT only. E.g. > > (example missing?) > > I think we should have the equivalent of of_have_populated_dt(), to > check whether acpi is being used to boot, and have that new function > be hardcoded to zero in case of !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI). The code already accounts for it. If ACPI isn't enabled, or isn't populated, then the ACPI_HANDLE macro will return NULL and the smsc911x_probe_config_acpi() function will fail. g. -- 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