linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] pinctrl: tegra: Move drivers registration to arch

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:   Mon, 06 Aug 2018 16:38:22 +0300
From:   Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
To:     Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, thierry.reding@...il.com,
        Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        Marcel Ziswiler <marcel@...wiler.com>,
        linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] pinctrl: tegra: Move drivers registration to arch_init level

On Monday, 6 August 2018 16:03:01 MSK Stefan Agner wrote:
> On 04.08.2018 16:01, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> > On Friday, 3 August 2018 20:24:56 MSK Linus Walleij wrote:
> >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 1:31 PM Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch> wrote:
> >> > A while back at least using those init lists were not well received
> >> > even
> >> > for GPIO/pinctrl drivers:
> >> > 
> >> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CACRpkdYk0zW12qNXgOstTLmdVDYacu0Un+8quTN+J
> >> > _az
> >> > Oic7AA@...l.gmail.com/T/#mf0596982324a6489b5537b0531ac5aed60a316ba
> >> 
> >> You shouldn't listen too much to that guy he's not trustworthy.
> 
> ;-)
> 
> >> > I still think we should make an exception for GPIO/pinctrl and use
> >> > earlier initcalls. Platform GPIO/pinctrl drivers provide basic
> >> > infrastructure often used by many other drivers, we want to have them
> >> > loaded early. It avoids unnecessary EPROBE_DEFER and hence probably
> >> > even
> >> > boots faster.
> >> 
> >> When we have the pin control and GPIO at different initlevels it makes me
> >> uneasy because I feel we have implicit init dependencies that seem more
> >> than a little fragile.
> > 
> > Yes, it is not very good.
> 
> Btw, just noticed this now:
> GPIO driver -> arch_initcall
> pinctrl driver -> subsys_initcall

I'm not sure what you're talking about, it's the other way around in the 
patches.