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: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 13:53:11 +0300 From: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com> To: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>, Vivek Gautam <gautam.vivek@...sung.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] phy: improved lookup method On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 05:07:55PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: > On Thursday 18 September 2014 03:55 PM, Heikki Krogerus wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 03:35:08PM +0300, Heikki Krogerus wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 08:16:01PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: > >>> Assume you have 2 phys in your system.. > >>> static struct phy_lookup usb_lookup = { > >>> .phy_name = "phy-usb.0", > >>> .dev_id = "usb.0", > >>> .con_id = "usb", > >>> }; > >>> > >>> static struct phy_lookup sata_lookup = { > >>> .phy_name = "sata-usb.1", > >>> .dev_id = "sata.0", > >>> .con_id = "sata", > >>> }; > >>> > >>> First you do modprobe phy-usb, the probe of USB PHY driver gets invoked and it > >>> creates the PHY. The phy-core will find a free id (now it will be 0) and then > >>> name the phy as phy-usb.0. > >>> Then with modprobe phy-sata, the phy-core will create phy-sata.1. > >>> > >>> This is an ideal case where the .phy_name in phy_lookup matches. > >>> > >>> Consider if the order is flipped and the user does modprobe phy-sata first. The > >>> phy_names won't match anymore (the sata phy device name would be "sata-usb.0"). > > > > Actually, I don't think there would be this problem if we used the > > name of the actual device which is the parent of phy devices, right? > > hmm.. but if the parent is a multi-phy phy provider (like pipe3 PHY driver), we > might end up with the same problem. I'm not completely sure what you mean? If you are talking about platforms with multiple instances of a single phy, I don't see how there could ever be a scenario where we did not know the order in which they were enumerated. Can you give an example again? Thanks, -- heikki -- 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