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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20200416213535.GA2511@bogus>
Date:   Thu, 16 Apr 2020 16:35:35 -0500
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     Scott Wood <oss@...error.net>
Cc:     Wang Wenhu <wenhu.wang@...o.com>, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, christophe.leroy@....fr,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, kernel@...o.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4,4/4] drivers: uio: new driver for fsl_85xx_cache_sram

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 02:59:36PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> 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",	},

Form is <vendor>,<device> and "uio" is not a vendor (and never will be).

> > +	{},
> > +};
> > +
> > +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.

Agreed. "UIO" bindings have long been rejected.

Rob