linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH v1 0/5] Solve postboot supplier cleanup and optimize probe ordering

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]

Message-ID: <f9ddae55-91b3-27b2-0919-579f4d895e99@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Jun 2019 22:49:32 -0700
From:   Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
To:     Sandeep Patil <sspatil@...roid.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        David Collins <collinsd@...eaurora.org>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v1 0/5] Solve postboot supplier cleanup and
 optimize probe ordering

On 6/25/19 9:30 PM, Sandeep Patil wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 11:53:13AM +0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 03:37:07PM -0700, Sandeep Patil wrote:
>>> We are trying to make sure that all (most) drivers in an Aarch64 system can
>>> be kernel modules for Android, like any other desktop system for
>>> example. There are a number of problems we need to fix before that happens
>>> ofcourse.
>>
>> I will argue that this is NOT an android-specific issue.  If the goal of
>> creating an arm64 kernel that will "just work" for a wide range of
>> hardware configurations without rebuilding is going to happen, we need
>> to solve this problem with DT.  This goal was one of the original wishes
>> of the arm64 development effort, let's not loose sight of it as
>> obviously, this is not working properly just yet.
> 
> I believe the proposed solution in this patch series is just that. I am not
> sure what the alternatives are. The alternative suggested was to reuse

Look at the responses from myself and from Rob to patch 0.  No one responded
to our comments.

-Frank


> pre-existing dt-bindings for dependency based probe re-ordering and resolution.
> 
> However, it seems we had no way to *really* check if these dependencies are
> the real. So, a device may or may not actually depend on the other device for
> probe / initialization when the dependency is mentioned in it's dt node. From
> DT's point of view, there is no way to tell this ..
> 
> I don't know how this is handled in x86. With DT, I don't see how we can do
> this unless DT dependencies are _really_ tied with runtime dependencies (The
> cycles would have been apparent if that was the case.
> 
> Honestly, the "depends-on" property suggested here just piles on to the
> existing state. So, it is somewhat doubling the exiting bindings. It says,
> you must use depends-on property to define probe / initialization dependency.
> The existing bindings like 'clock', 'interrupt', '*-supply' do not enforce
> that right now, so you will have device nodes that have these bindings right
> now but don't necessarily need them for successful probe for example.
> 
>>
>> It just seems that Android is the first one to actually try and
>> implement that goal :)
> 
> I guess :)
> 
> - ssp
> 
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> greg k-h
>