linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] mfd: core: Support auxiliary device

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: <Z_TixhOQM-DFoG-2@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2025 11:48:06 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@...el.com>
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, david.m.ertman@...el.com,
	ira.weiny@...el.com, lee@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mfd: core: Support auxiliary device

On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 11:04:59AM +0300, Raag Jadav wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 11:45:30AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 11:44:50AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 01:16:14PM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote:
> > > > Extend MFD subsystem to support auxiliary child device. This is useful
> > > > for MFD usecases where parent device is on a discoverable bus and doesn't
> > > > fit into the platform device criteria. Purpose of this implementation is
> > > > to provide discoverable MFDs just enough infrastructure to register
> > > > independent child devices with their own memory and interrupt resources
> > > > without abusing the platform device.
> > > > 
> > > > Current support is limited to just PCI type MFDs, but this can be further
> > > > extended to support other types like USB in the future.
> > > 
> > > > PS: I'm leaning towards not doing any of the ioremap or regmap on MFD
> > > > side and think that we should enforce child devices to not overlap.
> > > 
> > > Yes, but we will have the cases in the future, whatever,
> > > for the first step it's okay.
> > > 
> > > > If there's a need to handle common register access by parent device,
> > > > then I think it warrants its own driver which adds auxiliary devices
> > > > along with a custom interface to communicate with them, and MFD on
> > > > AUX is not the right solution for it.
> > 
> > And yes, I still consider enforcing regmap is the right step to go.
> 
> Unless there's an explicit need for it, I think we should leave that
> choice to the individial drivers instead of forcing them to revamp.
> But let's see what Lee and Greg have to say about this.

Doing that is call to inherit all issues with shared resources and locking
as I already said.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko