linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v1 11/38] KVM: arm64: CCA: register host tsm platform 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: <2025073035-bulginess-rematch-b92e@gregkh>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 15:07:58 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Cc: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...nel.org>,
	Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev,
	kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, aik@....com, lukas@...ner.de,
	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...osinc.com>,
	Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@...ux.intel.com>,
	Suzuki K Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@....com>,
	Steven Price <steven.price@....com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
	Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 11/38] KVM: arm64: CCA: register host tsm platform
 device

On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 01:23:33PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 11:38:27 +0100
> Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 14:12:26 +0530
> > "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...nel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca> writes:
> > >   
> > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 06:10:45PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > > >    
> > > >> > +static struct platform_device cca_host_dev = {    
> > > >> Hmm. Greg is getting increasingly (and correctly in my view) grumpy with
> > > >> platform devices being registered with no underlying resources etc as glue
> > > >> layers.  Maybe some of that will come later.    
> > > >
> > > > Is faux_device a better choice? I admit to not knowing entirely what
> > > > it is for..  
> > 
> > I'll go with a cautious yes to faux_device. This case of a glue device
> > with no resources and no reason to be on a particular bus was definitely
> > the intent but I'm not 100% sure without trying it that we don't run
> > into any problems.
> > 
> > Not that many examples yet, but cpuidle-psci.c looks like a vaguely similar
> > case to this one.  
> > 
> > All it really does is move the location of the device and
> > smash together the device registration with probe/remove.
> > That means the device disappears if probe() fails, which is cleaner
> > in many ways than leaving a pointless stub behind.
> > 
> > Maybe it isn't appropriate it if is actually useful to rmmod/modprobe the
> > driver. 
> > 
> > +CC Greg on basis I may have wrong end of the stick ;)
> This time with at least one less typo in Greg's email address.

Yes, use faux_device if you need/want a struct device to represent
something in the tree and it does NOT have any real platform resources
behind it.  That's explicitly what it was designed for.

thanks,

greg k-h