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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 13 Mar 2017 14:06:37 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] [RFC] base: soc: Allow early registration of a single
 SoC device

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven
<geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 7:18 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven
>>
>> I'd prefer to not have to do the early registration at all and have fewer
>> special cases. Can you list a specific example that requires this?
>
> The specific example is the Renesas R-Car SYSC driver, which manages PM
> Domains and thus needs to be initialized from an early_initcall.

Ok, and what prevents us from using information in DT to detect which
variant we have? Is this a case of absolutely having to know the exact
hardware revision at the time of initialization, or is it just to simplify the
implementation of the SYSC driver?

     Arnd

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ