linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] um: virtio_uml: allow probing from devicetree

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: <20211222103417.GB25135@axis.com>
Date:   Wed, 22 Dec 2021 11:34:17 +0100
From:   Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@...s.com>
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
CC:     Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, kernel <kernel@...s.com>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-um@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-um@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] um: virtio_uml: allow probing from devicetree

On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 09:48:26PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-12-21 at 10:04 +0100, Vincent Whitchurch wrote:
> > Allow the virtio_uml device to be probed from the devicetree so that
> > sub-devices can be specified using the standard virtio bindings, for
> > example:
> > 
> >   virtio@1 {
> >     compatible = "virtio,uml";
> >     socket-path = "i2c.sock";
> >     virtio-device-id = <0x22>;
> > 
> 
> Given this, maybe it should modify
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/virtio/virtio-device.yaml? Or actually
> add a new Documentation/devicetree/bindings/virtio/uml.yaml I guess?
> 
> +Rob, because I'm not really into any of this.
> 
> Also, I'm not even sure we should/need to document the DT bits that are
> basically only used for testing in the first place?

I wasn't sure either, but Rob was OK with not documenting some other
bindings which are only used for testing[0], so I assumed that that
applied here too:

 [0] https://lore.kernel.org/all/5baa1ae6.1c69fb81.847f2.3ab1@mx.google.com/ 

Also, DT bindings are supposed to be generic and based on what the
hardware has, but here we have no hardware and something very Linux and
UML-specific.

> Code looks good to me.

Thanks!