lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/2] crypto: add new driver for Marvell CESA
On 17/04/2015 16:50, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 04:40:43PM +0200, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
>> Hi Maxime,
>>
>> On 17/04/2015 16:32, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 04:19:22PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>>>> Hi Gregory,
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 15:01:01 +0200
>>>> Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@free-electrons.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Boris,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 17/04/2015 10:39, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 10:33:56 +0200
>>>>>> Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Jason,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 20:11:46 +0000
>>>>>>> Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'd appreciate if we'd look into it. I understand from on-list and
>>>>>>>>>> off-list discussion that the rewrite was unavoidable. So I'm willing to
>>>>>>>>>> concede that. Giving people time to migrate from old to new while still
>>>>>>>>>> being able to update for other security fixes seems reasonable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jason, what do you think of the approach above?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I say keep it simple. We shouldn't use the DT changes to trigger one
>>>>>>>> vice the other. We need to be able to build both, but only load one at
>>>>>>>> a time. If that's anything other than simple to do, then we make it a
>>>>>>>> Kconfig binary choice and move on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually I was planning to handle it with a Kconfig dependency rule
>>>>>>> (NEW_DRIVER depends on !OLD_DRIVER and OLD_DRIVER depends
>>>>>>> on !NEW_DRIVER).
>>>>>>> I don't know how to make it a runtime check without adding new
>>>>>>> compatible strings for the kirkwood, dove and orion platforms, and I'm
>>>>>>> sure sure this is a good idea.
>>>>>> ^ not
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you have any ideas ?
>>>>>
>>>>> You use devm_ioremap_resource() in the new driver, so if the old one
>>>>> is already loaded the memory region will be already hold and the new
>>>>> driver will simply fail during the probe. So for this part it is OK.
>>>>
>>>> I like the idea :-).
>>>
>>> Not really, how do you know which device is going to be probed? For
>>> that matter, it's pretty much random, and you have no control over it.
>>>
>>> Why not just have a choice option, and select which one you want to
>>> enable?
>>
>> Because you can't prevent an user to build a module, then modifying the
>> configuration and building the other module.
>
> Well, actually, you don't even know if it's going to be a module. You
> might very well have both drivers compiled statically in the kernel
> image, and this is where the trouble begins.

No it won't be possible, Boris already speak about this issue (see below):
"Actually I was planning to handle it with a Kconfig dependency rule
(NEW_DRIVER depends on !OLD_DRIVER and OLD_DRIVER depends
on !NEW_DRIVER)."

>
>> So even if there is a choice at build time, and I think that it is
>> something expected for the v2, we still need preventing having the
>> both drivers trying accessing the same hardware in the same time.
>
> Of course, but this is already there, and doesn't really address the
> same issue.

This was the only issue remaining, (see below again):
"I don't know how to make it a runtime check ". And my last emails
was bout it.

Gregory


>
> Maxime
>


--
Gregory Clement, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-17 17:21    [W:0.056 / U:3.792 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site