linux-kernel - Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] soc: imx8m: change to use platform 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:   Wed, 18 Nov 2020 11:42:26 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To:     Alice Guo <alice.guo@....com>
Cc:     "robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "shawnguo@...nel.org" <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        "s.hauer@...gutronix.de" <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
        dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>, Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] soc: imx8m: change to use platform
 driver

On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 10:28:47AM +0000, Alice Guo wrote:
 > 
> > If it is properly explained and there is no other way then yes, you could. Here, for
> > old DTBs, I would prefer to use
> > of_platform_device_create() and bind to "soc" node (child of root).
> > This way you would always have device and exactly one entry point for the
> > probe.
> > 
> 
> static struct platform_driver imx8_soc_init_driver = {
> 	.probe = imx8_soc_init_probe,
> 	.driver = {
> 		.name = "soc@0",
> 	},
> };
> Can I use "soc@0" to match this driver? It will not use of_platform_device_create(). It will use of_find_property() to determine whether
> and nvmem-cells can be used. If there is no nvmem-cells, it will use the old way, which supports old DTBS. There is no need to add new
> compatible.

No, the soc@0 is not a proper name for the driver.

Best regards,
Krzysztof