linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Revert "firmware: vpd: remove platform driver"

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 27 May 2017 11:46:16 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc:     Julius Werner <jwerner@...omium.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "firmware: vpd: remove platform driver"

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 01:57:49PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> This reverts commit 7975bd4cca05a99aa14964cfa22366ee64da50ad, because
> VPD relies on driver core to handle deferrals returned by
> coreboot_table_find().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
> Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>
> ---
> 
> Greg, here is the revert we discussed.
> 
> I will look into whether we could make coreboot table not use deferrals,
> but some mother mechanism to notify users that the data is available.
> The entities we are dealing here with are not really hardware devices
> and I consider using platform devices/drivers for them misuse of the
> driver model, but for now it needs to stay as it was.

If they aren't platform devices, then why just make them "virtual"
devices, using a simple device_create() call with no parent?

thanks,

greg k-h