linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] power: reset: at91: add sama5d3 reset function

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]

Date:	Fri, 10 Jul 2015 18:12:03 +0200
From:	Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>
To:	Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
	Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
	Josh Wu <josh.wu@...el.com>
CC:	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
	Wei Yongjun <yongjun_wei@...ndmicro.com.cn>,
	Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@...ethink.co.uk>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Krzysztof Kozlowski" <k.kozlowski.k@...il.com>,
	Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>,
	Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbaryshkov@...il.com>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	Fabian Frederick <fabf@...net.be>, <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] power: reset: at91: add sama5d3 reset function

Le 10/07/2015 14:31, Maxime Ripard a écrit :
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 02:09:07PM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 10/07/2015 at 15:56:52 +0800, Josh Wu wrote :
>>> I would agree with Maxime. Currently all latest chip reset function is
>>> compatible with the atmel,sama5d3-rstc.
>>> So check compatible string is enough for now.
>>> But of cause if we have other incompatible reset in future with new chip,
>>> the structure like you said is needed.
>>
>> We managed to avoid using of_machine_is_compatible() in all the at91
>> drivers. I'd like to keep it that way. It was painful enough to remove
>> all those cpu_is_at91xxx calls.
> 
> That's your call...
> 
>> Also, using it is trying to match strings and will result in longer boot
>> times.
> 
> Have you looked at the implementation of of_match_device? If that's
> really a concern to you, you should actually avoid it.

I agree: let's keep it simple and use of_match_device().

Bye,
-- 
Nicolas Ferre
--
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/