linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] of: Don't create platform device for OPP tables

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

Message-ID: <CAL_JsqJHkwfCM=5+XCtOF+P9HRuhROB2FLKa3Qq1NhYd7_J7_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 13 Apr 2018 08:07:50 -0500
From:   Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:     Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: Don't create platform device for OPP tables

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:05 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> The OPP tables are present as separate nodes, whose phandle is used in
> the "operating-points-v2" property of devices. Currently the OF core
> creates a platform device for the OPP table unconditionally, which is
> not used by any kernel code.
>
> Skip creating OPP table platform devices.
>
> Reported-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/of/platform.c | 6 ++++++
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/of/platform.c b/drivers/of/platform.c
> index c00d81dfac0b..aaae5d90433d 100644
> --- a/drivers/of/platform.c
> +++ b/drivers/of/platform.c
> @@ -356,6 +356,12 @@ static int of_platform_bus_create(struct device_node *bus,
>                 return 0;
>         }
>
> +       /* OPP tables have separate nodes, but we don't want devices for them */
> +       if (unlikely(of_device_is_compatible(bus, "operating-points-v2"))) {

Can you make this a match table instead. I could imagine we may have
some other cases to add.

> +               pr_debug("%s() - skipping OPP node %pOF\n", __func__, bus);
> +               return 0;
> +       }
> +
>         if (of_node_check_flag(bus, OF_POPULATED_BUS)) {
>                 pr_debug("%s() - skipping %pOF, already populated\n",
>                         __func__, bus);
> --
> 2.15.0.194.g9af6a3dea062
>