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, 07 Oct 2014 18:37:46 +0300 From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> Cc: Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>, Len Brown <Len.Brown@...el.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, David Woodhouse <david.woodhouse@...el.com>, Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>, Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>, Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>, Bryan Wu <cooloney@...il.com>, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>, Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 07/16] gpio: Add support for unified device properties interface On Tue, 2014-10-07 at 15:37 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 11:12:36AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > So as Mika has pointed out, LEDs aren't the only ones affected. Several drivers > > will need to walk through non-device child nodes, and it seems to me that having > > a firmware-independent mechanism to do so benefits the drivers by both making > > them smaller and by increasing the reusability of new drivers and drivers > > updated to use the new API across platforms. > > In a recent round of reviews, for the OF case, that led to drivers > which used device_initcall() without being a module, getting a match > and handle to the parent device, and then walking over the nodes > and instantiating child objects (Linux devices usually) in the process. > > It was done as a response to the remark from Rob Herring that > we were modeling things in the device tree as devices when they > really weren't, we were just doing it that way because it fits the > Linux device model and it's easier. > > So we have that case too. > > The question is if it's anything close to generalizable. > > > Grant, Linus W? Thoughts? > > I'm uncertain on the whole subject, I called on the others > because of that... > > For a while I had Andy Schevenko patch the GPIO and > SFI core too, but it timed out due to no response from Len > Brown. (Maybe I should just merge that stuff!) Do you (Intel) also > want to unify the Medfield SFI thing into this or have you > given up on it? I think SFI is quite outdated stuff, though I have still Medfield device close to me. I don't think there will be any new platform with SFI (on the other hand we never know :-) ). Thus, my opinion you may go ahead without worrying about SFI. -- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com> Intel Finland Oy -- 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