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]

Message-ID: <AM6PR04MB6053817F03F3857C68CA833CE2E10@AM6PR04MB6053.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Wed, 18 Nov 2020 14:07:41 +0000
From:   Alice Guo <alice.guo@....com>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
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



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

I have no good idea, please give suggestion. Should I still add new compatible?
Should I still keep device_initcall? If use of_platform_device_create(), which
node should I use?

Best regards,
Alice Guo

> Best regards,
> Krzysztof