[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YXavBWTNYsufqj8u@heinlein>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 08:20:05 -0500
From: Patrick Williams <patrick@...cx.xyz>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
Zev Weiss <zev@...ilderbeest.net>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@...dia.com>,
Jeremy Kerr <jk@...econstruct.com.au>,
Rajat Jain <rajatja@...gle.com>,
Jianxiong Gao <jxgao@...gle.com>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>,
openbmc@...ts.ozlabs.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Bhaskar Chowdhury <unixbhaskar@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Jeffery <andrew@...id.au>,
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
dmaengine@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] driver core: inhibit automatic driver binding on
reserved devices
On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 03:58:25PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 06:44:26AM -0500, Patrick Williams wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 08:15:41AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 12:38:08AM -0500, Frank Rowand wrote:
> > > > On 10/23/21 3:56 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >
> > > We have the bind/unbind ability today, from userspace, that can control
> > > this. Why not just have Linux grab the device when it boots, and then
> > > when userspace wants to "give the device up", it writes to "unbind" in
> > > sysfs, and then when all is done, it writes to the "bind" file and then
> > > Linux takes back over.
> > >
> > > Unless for some reason Linux should _not_ grab the device when booting,
> > > then things get messier, as we have seen in this thread.
> >
> > This is probably more typical on a BMC than atypical. The systems often require
> > the BMC (running Linux) to be able to reboot independently from the managed host
> > (running anything). In the example Zev gave, the BMC rebooting would rip away
> > the BIOS chip from the running host.
> >
> > The BMC almost always needs to come up in a "I don't know what could possibly be
> > going on in the system" state and re-discover where the system was left off.
>
> Isn't it an architectural issue then?
I'm not sure what "it" you are referring to here.
I was trying to explain why starting in "bind" state is not a good idea for a
BMC in most of these cases where we want to be able to dynamically add a device.
--
Patrick Williams
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists