linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 09/46] watchdog: sa1100: use platform device registration

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: <21d72661-a4f1-d51f-ddf0-f8cebb984029@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Tue, 22 Oct 2019 06:38:57 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>,
        Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...il.com>,
        Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@...e.fr>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        LINUXWATCHDOG <linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/46] watchdog: sa1100: use platform device registration

On 10/22/19 2:44 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 4:07 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> 
>>> @@ -319,10 +316,13 @@ static struct platform_device *sa11x0_devices[] __initdata = {
>>>
>>>    static int __init sa1100_init(void)
>>>    {
>>> +     struct resource wdt_res = DEFINE_RES_MEM(0x90000000, 0x20);
>>>        pm_power_off = sa1100_power_off;
>>>
>>>        regulator_has_full_constraints();
>>>
>>> +     platform_device_register_simple("sa1100_wdt", -1, &wdt_res, 1);
>>> +
>>>        return platform_add_devices(sa11x0_devices, ARRAY_SIZE(sa11x0_devices));
>>
>> Wouldn't it be better to add the watchdog device to sa11x0_devices ?
> 
> Generally speaking, platform_device_register_simple() is better than
> platform_add_devices(), it does the same thing with fewer source lines
> and smaller object code, and it doesn't have the problem of lifetime rules
> for statically allocated reference-counted devices.
> 
> One day we may want to replace all static platform_device instances with
> platform_device_info instead, but right now there are too many of those.
> 
> I can change this one to a platform_device for consistency though if you
> think it's worth it.
> 

No, I was just wondering. Thanks for the explanation.

Guenter