linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] soc: ti: add k3 platforms chipid module driver

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: <6614f29d-1796-18d9-9b78-214f56964a35@ti.com>
Date:   Mon, 11 May 2020 14:11:11 +0300
From:   Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC:     Santosh Shilimkar <ssantosh@...nel.org>,
        Tero Kristo <t-kristo@...com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla@...com>,
        DTML <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dave Gerlach <d-gerlach@...com>, Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] soc: ti: add k3 platforms chipid module driver

Hi Arnd,

On 09/05/2020 01:17, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 12:01 PM Grygorii Strashko
> <grygorii.strashko@...com> wrote:
> 
>> +static int __init k3_chipinfo_init(void)
>> +{
>> +       struct soc_device_attribute *soc_dev_attr;
>> +       struct soc_device *soc_dev;
>> +       struct device_node *node;
>> +       struct regmap *regmap;
>> +       u32 partno_id;
>> +       u32 variant;
>> +       u32 jtag_id;
>> +       u32 mfg;
>> +       int ret;
>> +
>> +       node = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "ti,am654-chipid");
>> +       if (!node)
>> +               return -ENODEV;
> 
> This will fail the initcall and print a warning when the kernel runs on any
> other SoC. Would it be possible to just make this a platform_driver?
> 
> If not, I think you should silently return success when the device
> node is absent.

Thank you for your report.
Can' make it platform drv., as te SoC info need to be accessible by divers early.
I'll fix it to return success.

-- 
Best regards,
grygorii