linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] of: base: add support to get machine model name

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: <075d4718-8cd2-e390-b755-bc24e7497eae@arm.com>
Date:   Fri, 18 Nov 2016 10:41:10 +0000
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] of: base: add support to get machine model name



On 17/11/16 21:00, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 11/17/16 07:32, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>> Currently platforms/drivers needing to get the machine model name are
>> replicating the same snippet of code. In some case, the OF reference
>> counting is either missing or incorrect.
>>
>> This patch adds support to read the machine model name either using
>> the "model" or the "compatible" property in the device tree root node
>> to the core OF/DT code.
>>
>> This can be used to remove all the duplicate code snippets doing exactly
>> same thing later.
>
> I find five instances of reading only property "model":
>
>   arch/arm/mach-imx/cpu.c
>   arch/arm/mach-mxs/mach-mxs.c
>   arch/c6x/kernel/setup.c
>   arch/mips/cavium-octeon/setup.c
>   arch/sh/boards/of-generic.c
>

Ah sorry you were not Cc-ed in 2/2, but that shows all the instances
that this will be used for.

> I find one instance of reading property "model", then if
> that does not exist, property "compatible":
>
>   arch/mips/generic/proc.c
>

Correct as you can check in patch 2/2

> The proposed patch matches the code used in one place, and thus
> current usage does not match the patch description.
>

Yes, but does it matter ? compatibles are somewhat informative about the
model IMO.

> Is my search bad?  Are you planning to add additional instances
> of reading "model" then "compatible"?
>

No, just replacing the existing ones as in patch 2/2

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep