linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] PCI: dwc: layerscape: convert to builtin_platform

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Thu, 21 Jan 2021 00:53:44 +0100
From:   Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
To:     Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Minghuan Lian <minghuan.Lian@....com>,
        Mingkai Hu <mingkai.hu@....com>, Roy Zang <roy.zang@....com>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: dwc: layerscape: convert to
 builtin_platform_driver()

Am 2021-01-20 20:47, schrieb Saravana Kannan:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 11:28 AM Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc> 
> wrote:
>> 
>> [RESEND, fat-fingered the buttons of my mail client and converted
>> all CCs to BCCs :(]
>> 
>> Am 2021-01-20 20:02, schrieb Saravana Kannan:
>> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 6:24 AM Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 4:53 AM Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > fw_devlink will defer the probe until all suppliers are ready. We can't
>> >> > use builtin_platform_driver_probe() because it doesn't retry after probe
>> >> > deferral. Convert it to builtin_platform_driver().
>> >>
>> >> If builtin_platform_driver_probe() doesn't work with fw_devlink, then
>> >> shouldn't it be fixed or removed?
>> >
>> > I was actually thinking about this too. The problem with fixing
>> > builtin_platform_driver_probe() to behave like
>> > builtin_platform_driver() is that these probe functions could be
>> > marked with __init. But there are also only 20 instances of
>> > builtin_platform_driver_probe() in the kernel:
>> > $ git grep ^builtin_platform_driver_probe | wc -l
>> > 20
>> >
>> > So it might be easier to just fix them to not use
>> > builtin_platform_driver_probe().
>> >
>> > Michael,
>> >
>> > Any chance you'd be willing to help me by converting all these to
>> > builtin_platform_driver() and delete builtin_platform_driver_probe()?
>> 
>> If it just moving the probe function to the _driver struct and
>> remove the __init annotations. I could look into that.
> 
> Yup. That's pretty much it AFAICT.
> 
> builtin_platform_driver_probe() also makes sure the driver doesn't ask
> for async probe, etc. But I doubt anyone is actually setting async
> flags and still using builtin_platform_driver_probe().

Hasn't module_platform_driver_probe() the same problem? And there
are ~80 drivers which uses that.

-michael