From: arnd@arndb•de (Arnd Bergmann)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists•infradead.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH dtc] C-based DT schema checker integrated into dtc
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:17:32 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201311052117.33443.arnd@arndb.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131105195820.GB20600@obsidianresearch.com>
On Tuesday 05 November 2013, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 08:34:00PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Tuesday 05 November 2013, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > The issue is sysfs, the TPM core attaches attributes to the driver's
> > > struct device, which means it has to convert from struct device * to
> > > its own private data. It is totally wrong, but that is the way
> > > it has been for ever. :(
> >
> > I've just had a very brief look at that subsystem, and the first driver
> > I looked at (tpm_atmel) actually creates a child platform_device for
> > the sole purpose of registering that with the tpm subsystem, which seems
> > to avoid this problem.
>
> The TPM subsystem requires a struct device to bind onto (for sysfs at
> least), so drivers that don't have one are required to create one :|
>
> atmel is unusual as most drivers have a pre-existing device.
Eeek, yes I see now. OTOH, it would still be able to do the same thing
by binding to the actual platform_device. Judging from the copyright
notice, this driver predates the move to creating 'struct device'
instances for (most) device nodes, and it uses the old-style
method of searching the DT from the module_init function, which is
not how we do things today.
Creating a platform_device (or a plain device, for that matter)
from a proper probe() function would have a similar effect from
the perspective of the TPM subsystem (or other subsystems using
the same drvdata trick), and make it possible to use my proposed
devm_probe method from any tpm driver. The main downside I can
see is that it requires duplicating some code in each TPM driver
that wants to convert to devm_probe, but on the upside it doesn't
require any changes to the TPM subsystem or to other drivers the
way that a proper fix would.
> > Maybe the same can be done for the other drivers as
> > well. Unfortunately, that will change the sysfs structure, which
> > might break user space relying on the current path to the
> > device.
>
> AFAIK the correct fix is to have the TPM subsystem core create a
> struct device for its own use (eg tpm0), under its own class, which is
> what other subsystems I looked at do.
Yes. Note that the use of new 'class'es is not recommended any more,
nowadays we are supposed to use 'bus_type' for this, which is
traditionally something slightly different, but technically almost
the same implementation-wise.
> This way the subsystem can have
> access to a release function that is properly tied to the actual
> object lifetime, and it can use container_of to retrieve its own
> private data from, eg sysfs. Combined with get_ops/put_ops style
> access I think you can solve the unload lifetime issues with sysfs..
>
> However, even if all that is done, compatibility sysfs's under the
> driver's struct device will still be needed, which AFAICT will still
> require the drvdata be owned by the subsystem not the driver :(
That depends: the requirement is that no user space breaks after
a change. I assume that there is a fairly limited set of packages
accessing the tpm sysfs files. If all of them are written properly,
they should be able to deal with looking at the files in a different
place in sysfs.
Another option is to change the TPM core sysfs attributes not to
look at drvdata, but to use devres_find() to find the data they
need.
Arnd
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-11-05 20:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-10-24 21:51 [RFC PATCH dtc] C-based DT schema checker integrated into dtc Stephen Warren
2013-10-24 23:43 ` Grant Likely
2013-10-25 4:00 ` Kumar Gala
2013-10-25 14:44 ` Stephen Warren
2013-10-25 15:21 ` Jon Loeliger
2013-10-25 17:38 ` Rob Herring
2013-10-25 23:11 ` David Gibson
2013-11-03 23:15 ` Tomasz Figa
2013-11-03 23:26 ` Tomasz Figa
2013-11-04 9:28 ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-11-04 12:31 ` Tomasz Figa
2013-11-04 16:37 ` Stephen Warren
2013-11-04 18:57 ` Olof Johansson
2013-11-04 20:43 ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-11-04 21:29 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2013-11-04 21:43 ` Stephen Warren
2013-11-04 22:21 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2013-11-05 12:14 ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-11-05 8:39 ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-11-05 18:03 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2013-11-05 18:48 ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-11-05 19:12 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2013-11-05 19:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-11-05 19:58 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2013-11-05 20:17 ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
2013-11-05 20:36 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2013-11-04 21:50 ` Stephen Warren
2013-11-05 8:22 ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-11-06 12:17 ` Thierry Reding
2013-11-04 14:28 ` David Gibson
2013-11-04 16:42 ` Stephen Warren
2013-10-28 10:17 ` David Gibson
2013-10-31 21:13 ` Stephen Warren
2013-11-01 13:24 ` David Gibson
2013-10-25 23:29 ` David Gibson
2013-10-31 21:11 ` Stephen Warren
2013-11-10 11:00 ` David Gibson
2013-11-12 22:06 ` Stephen Warren
2013-11-13 0:33 ` David Gibson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201311052117.33443.arnd@arndb.de \
--to=arnd@arndb$(echo .)de \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists$(echo .)infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox