linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/14] init: deps: dt: use (HW-specific) dependencies provided by the DT too

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]

Message-ID: <56252415.2090605@ahsoftware.de>
Date:	Mon, 19 Oct 2015 19:10:45 +0200
From:	Alexander Holler <holler@...oftware.de>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/14] init: deps: dt: use (HW-specific) dependencies
 provided by the DT too

Am 19.10.2015 um 14:37 schrieb Mark Brown:
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 07:14:16PM +0200, Alexander Holler wrote:
>> This patch adds dependencies provided by the hardware description in
>> the used DT. This avoids the use of the deferred probe mechanism
>> on most (if not all) DT based kernels.
>>
>> Drawback is that the binary DT blob has to be enhanced with type
>> information for phandles (which are used as dependencies) which
>> needs a modified dtc.
>
> You probably want to loop the DT and DTC maintainers in on this - adding
> Frank, Rob and David and leaving context for their reference.  It would
> probably help if you could explicitly say why the DTB needs to be
> annotated and why this annotiation is best done via a DTC modification

I've had them on the cc-list on the previous two evolutions of these 
patches, when the whole stuff was for DT only. The annotation is not for 
DTB but for initcalls. But maybe you mean with annotation the missing 
type information in DTBs, which is why I had to add a new property.

> (rather than doing something like add new properties, or just guessing
> that any phandle reference is a dependency).

Besides the remote-endpoints, which have been introduced after my first 
patch to use phandles as dependencies (1.5 years ago or so), every 
phandle also was a dependency.

But anyway, the stuff was ignored before and the current evolution of 
the patches will never see mainline (too).

So, just see the whole approach as failed. I don't have a problem with 
that. At least I do that and almost did that before, I've just posted 
the newest version of the approach because I see it as the final 
evolution and don't will work further on that stuff anymore.

Regards,

Alexander Holler
--
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/