linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Add software node support to regulator framework

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: <CAHp75VeyNyYSbTMgS+5tXxOZehfxt6Wws9jScKYRKQhRRGDwsg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Jul 2021 16:01:05 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Mark Gross <mgross@...ux.intel.com>,
        Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@...il.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
        kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Add software node support to regulator framework

On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 3:42 PM Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 11, 2021 at 12:37:03PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 8:05 PM Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 11:42:24PM +0100, Daniel Scally wrote:
>
> > > What is a software node and why would we want to use one here?
>
> > Software node is a representation of (missed and / or quirked)
> > firmware nodes in the code.
>
> > > Why are we not just using board files, what does this new abstraction
> > > solve?
>
> > Software node _is_ a board file part. The idea behind that is that the
> > driver, which requires any additional / necessary property that has
> > been missed in the firmware nodes, wouldn't need special treatment if
> > that property comes from a board file rather than firmware.
>
> This doesn't seem to correspond with what these patches are doing,
> they're creating something which bears no relation to any firmware
> interface and the code is specifically looking for swnodes.

Okay, this seems like a different story.
The software nodes shouldn't appear on its own in the generic code.
When we use software nodes API in it, it means that we have tried
other providers _explicitly_ and haven't found what we are looking for
and hence we have to check if software nodes are providing the same.
For example, here it's done that way:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.14-rc1/source/kernel/irq/irqdomain.c#L178.

In all other cases it shouldn't be called explicitly.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko