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:   Wed, 2 Aug 2017 18:45:35 +0100
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Cc:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: return of_get_cpu_node from of_cpu_device_node_get if
 CPUs are not registered



On 24/07/17 17:32, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> 
> 
> On 24/07/17 17:00, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 8:55 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com> wrote:
>>> Instead of the callsites choosing between of_cpu_device_node_get if the
>>> CPUs are registered as of_node is populated by then and of_get_cpu_node
>>> when the CPUs are not yet registered as CPU of_nodes are not yet stashed
>>> thereby needing to parse the device tree, we can call of_get_cpu_node
>>> in case the CPUs are not yet registered.
>>>
>>> This will allow to use of_cpu_device_node_get anywhere hiding the
>>> details from the caller.
>>>
>>> Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
>>> Cc: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
>>> ---
>>>  include/linux/of_device.h | 2 +-
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> Hi Rob,
>>>
>>> Let me know if you are OK with this change. I keep seeing different
>>> drivers calling of_get_cpu_node or of_cpu_device_node_get based on what
>>> they are aware of or copying from other place without knowing the
>>> details. I am trying to avoid that and ask to use of_cpu_device_node_get
>>> at all places instead.
>>
>> Seems fine to me.
>>
>> Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
>>
> 
> Thanks. Can you take it through your tree itself ? I can make any follow
> patches(if any) once this lands in the tree. I don't have any for now
> just to avoid all cross dependencies.
> 

Sorry for the nag. Please queue this for v4.14 via your DT tree itself.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ