netdev - Re: [PATCH 07/19] timberdale: mfd_cell is now implicitly available to drivers

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20110406220900.GA16117@suse.de>
Date:	Wed, 6 Apr 2011 15:09:00 -0700
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To:	Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>
Cc:	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	Andres Salomon <dilinger@...ued.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
	khali@...ux-fr.org, ben-linux@...ff.org,
	Peter Korsgaard <jacmet@...site.dk>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...radead.org>,
	David Brownell <dbrownell@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
	linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, spi-devel-general@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	Mocean Laboratories <info@...ean-labs.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/19] timberdale: mfd_cell is now implicitly available
 to drivers

On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 09:59:02PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 08:47:34PM +0200, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
> > > > > What is a "MFD cell pointer" and why is it needed in struct device?
> > > > An MFD cell is an MFD instantiated device.
> > > > MFD (Multi Function Device) drivers instantiate platform devices. Those
> > > > devices drivers sometimes need a platform data pointer, sometimes an MFD
> > > > specific pointer, and sometimes both. Also, some of those drivers have been
> > > > implemented as MFD sub drivers, while others know nothing about MFD and just
> > > > expect a plain platform_data pointer.
> > > 
> > > That sounds like a bug in those drivers, why not fix them to properly
> > > pass in the correct pointer?
> > Because they're drivers for generic IPs, not MFD ones. By forcing them to use
> > MFD specific structure and APIs, we make it more difficult for platform code
> > to instantiate them.
> 
> I agree. What I do on those cases is to have a simple platform_device
> for the core IP driver and use platform_device_id tables to do runtime
> checks of the small differences. If one platform X doesn't use a
> platform_bus, it uses e.g. PCI, then you make a PCI "bridge" which
> allocates a platform_device with the correct name and adds that to the
> driver model.
> 
> See [1] (for the core driver) and [2] (for a PCI bridge driver) for an
> example of what I'm talking about.

Yes, thanks for providing a real example, this is the best way to handle
this.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html