linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/7] clocksource: Add Tegra186 timers support

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: <23f9ba4f-0e6b-a946-a52d-eea1916a38ef@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 23 Mar 2020 19:10:52 +0300
From:   Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
To:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] clocksource: Add Tegra186 timers support

23.03.2020 16:45, Dmitry Osipenko пишет:
> 23.03.2020 16:42, Thierry Reding пишет:
>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 06:38:32PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>> 20.03.2020 18:11, Dmitry Osipenko пишет:
>>>> 20.03.2020 16:34, Thierry Reding пишет:
>>>>> From: Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently this only supports a single watchdog, which uses a timer in
>>>>> the background for countdown. Eventually the timers could be used for
>>>>> various time-keeping tasks, but by default the architected timer will
>>>>> already provide that functionality.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>> +config TEGRA186_TIMER
>>>>> +	bool "NVIDIA Tegra186 timer driver"
>>>>
>>>> tristate?
>>>>
>>>>> +	depends on ARCH_TEGRA || COMPILE_TEST
>>>>
>>>> depends on WATCHDOG && WATCHDOG_CORE?
>>>
>>> Actually `select WATCHDOG_CORE` for the WATCHDOG_CORE.
>>
>> WATCHDOG_CORE is user-visible, so it's not safe to select it. Any reason
>> depends on WATCHDOG && WATCHDOG_CORE wouldn't work? I guess a dependency
>> on WATCHDOG_CORE would be enough because that itself already depends on
>> WATCHDOG.
> 
> It looks to that should be much better if you could factor out all the
> watchdog functionality into the drivers/watchdog, like it's done in a
> case of MC / SMMU drivers for example.

Also, please see drivers/watchdog/Kconfig where each individual driver
selects WATCHDOG_CORE on by as-needed basis.