linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] Cleanup arm64 driver dependencies

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 12 Sep 2019 15:33:20 +0530
From:   Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...aro.org>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Lists LAKML <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        arm-soc <arm@...nel.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        linux-clk <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-pci <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Cleanup arm64 driver dependencies

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 3:17 PM Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 03:48:44AM +0530, Amit Kucheria wrote:
>
> > I was using initcall_debugging on a QCOM platform and ran across a bunch of
> > driver initcalls that are enabled even if their SoC support is disabled.
>
> What exactly is the problem you're trying to fix here?  For the
> drivers I looked at these were bog standard register the driver
> with the subsystem type initcalls on optional drivers so not
> doing anything particularly disruptive or anything like that.

I was trying to prune the defconfig only to drivers that make sense on
the SoC. e.g. Why should I see a brcmstb_soc_device_early_init() call
on a QCOM system when I've disabled ARCH_BRCMSTB?

I came across this while trying to figure out how to make thermal and
cpufreq frameworks initialise as early as possible.

> For any given system that's going to be an issue for the
> overwhelming majority of drivers on the tree, including those
> that aren't associated with any particular architecture.

Indeed. From a quick check, MFD and GPIO has a bunch of 'generic'
drivers that aren't SoC-specific. I'm sure there are several such
drivers in regulator framework too. They don't need to be 'fixed'.

I was just trying to ring-fence obvious SoC-specific drivers behind a
ARCH_FOO dependency since they seemed like low-hanging fruit. Let me
know if it isn't a good use of everyone's time.

Regards,
Amit