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]

Date:   Mon, 11 May 2020 14:43:47 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>
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

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 1:11 PM Grygorii Strashko
<grygorii.strashko@...com> wrote:
>
> 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 the SoC info need to be accessible by divers early.

Which drivers in particular? In most cases you should be able to still do this
right by relying on initcall ordering as long as this one can only be built-in
(or possibly only a module for compile-testing).

      Arnd