linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4,4/4] drivers: uio: new driver for fsl_85xx_cache

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]

Message-ID: <16f8fa2d26d88f22ed05e9870709c2fd5c3960cf.camel@buserror.net>
Date:   Thu, 16 Apr 2020 14:59:36 -0500
From:   Scott Wood <oss@...error.net>
To:     Wang Wenhu <wenhu.wang@...o.com>, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, christophe.leroy@....fr,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Cc:     kernel@...o.com, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4,4/4] drivers: uio: new driver for fsl_85xx_cache_sram

On Thu, 2020-04-16 at 08:35 -0700, Wang Wenhu wrote:
> +#define UIO_INFO_VER	"devicetree,pseudo"

What does this mean?  Changing a number into a non-obvious string (Why
"pseudo"?  Why does the UIO user care that the config came from the device
tree?) just to avoid setting off Greg's version number autoresponse isn't
really helping anything.

> +static const struct of_device_id uio_mpc85xx_l2ctlr_of_match[] = {
> +	{	.compatible = "uio,mpc85xx-cache-sram",	},
> +	{},
> +};
> +
> +static struct platform_driver uio_fsl_85xx_cache_sram = {
> +	.probe = uio_fsl_85xx_cache_sram_probe,
> +	.remove = uio_fsl_85xx_cache_sram_remove,
> +	.driver = {
> +		.name = DRIVER_NAME,
> +		.owner = THIS_MODULE,
> +		.of_match_table	= uio_mpc85xx_l2ctlr_of_match,
> +	},
> +};

Greg's comment notwithstanding, I really don't think this belongs in the
device tree (and if I do get overruled on that point, it at least needs a
binding document).  Let me try to come up with a patch for dynamic allocation.

-Scott