[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1502031317130.28495@nippy.intranet>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 14:22:17 +1100 (AEDT)
From: Finn Thain <fthain@...egraphics.com.au>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
cc: Rickard Strandqvist <rickard_strandqvist@...ctrumdigital.se>,
linux-m68k <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: nvram and generic_nvram modules are problematic, was Re: [PATCH]
arch: m68k: mac: misc.c: Remove some unused functions
On Sun, 1 Feb 2015, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 4:39 AM, Finn Thain wrote:
> > On Sun, 4 Jan 2015, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Finn Thain wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 1 Jan 2015, Rickard Strandqvist wrote:
> > > > > Removes some functions that are not used anywhere:
> > > > > mac_pram_write() mac_pram_read()
> > > >
> > > > ... I'd rather not remove all of this code. Better to finish the
> > > > implementation.
> > >
> > > Indeed.
> > >
> > > > Would it be acceptable to utilize drivers/char/generic_nvram.c and
> > > > CONFIG_GENERIC_NVRAM? This is the PowerMac PRAM driver but looks
> > > > generic enough that it may not need any modification for 68k Macs.
> > >
> > > Yes, that would be great.
> > >
> >
> > Unfortunately, it seems to be unworkable.
>
> An alternative could be to just provide an nvram attribute file in
> sysfs, like many RTC drivers do.
>
Are attribute files seekable? Even if userspace could use "/dev/nvram" and
"/sys/whatever/nvram" interchangably, wouldn't it be better if PPC Macs
and 68k Macs offered a consistent API to userspace?
And your suggestion doesn't solve the problem, that is, to be able to
build a multi-platform kernel binary in which drivers can access NVRAM.
The __nvram_read_byte(), nvram_read_byte() etc functions defined in
drivers/char/nvram.c, if allowed to proliferate because random
architectures might like to use a generic /dev/nvram API, would further
uglify that file.
If the m68k Mac kernel doesn't define the nvram_read_byte() routine then
valkyriefb can't use it. (fbdev drivers are apparently the reason why
powerpc defines them.)
drivers/char/nvram.c has two sets of these routines for PC RTC NVRAM; one
for m68k (Atari) and one for arm/x86. We don't want to introduce more code
into drivers/char/nvram.c to support all four configurations:
1) arm/x86
2) atari
3) atari + mac
4) mac
So we'd end up having to move m68k-specific code out of
drivers/char/nvram.c, to make it generic. And that then begs all of the
questions in my previous message.
BTW, my experimental patches replaced all of those __nvram_* and nvram_*
functions with an ops struct. E.g.
$ cat include/linux/nvram.h
#ifndef _LINUX_NVRAM_H
#define _LINUX_NVRAM_H
#include <uapi/linux/nvram.h>
struct nvram_ops {
ssize_t (*read)(char *, size_t, loff_t *);
ssize_t (*write)(char *, size_t, loff_t *);
unsigned char (*read_byte)(int);
void (*write_byte)(unsigned char, int);
ssize_t (*get_size)(void);
#ifdef CONFIG_PPC
void (*sync)(void);
#else
long (*set_checksum)(void);
long (*initialize)(void);
#endif
};
extern const struct nvram_ops arch_nvram_ops;
extern const struct nvram_ops rtc_nvram_ops;
#endif /* _LINUX_NVRAM_H */
This experiment has m68k implement arch_nvram_ops that dispatch to Atari
or Mac methods (at compile-time for a single-platform kernel, or at
run-time for a multi-platform kernel binary).
But this implies modifications to fbdev drivers, PPC32 and PPC64, nvram
and generic_nvram modules. And any work at all done on generic_nvram seems
to be misguided, unless it is removal.
--
--
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