From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh-XVmvHMARGAS8U2dJNN8I7kB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org>
To: Grant Likely <grant.likely-s3s/WqlpOiPyB63q8FvJNQ@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh-hQyY1W1yCW8ekmWlsbkhG0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org>,
devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org,
linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
Rob Herring <rob.herring-bsGFqQB8/DxBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>,
davem-fT/PcQaiUtIeIZ0/mPfg9Q@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] of: Make device nodes kobjects so they show up in sysfs
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 13:49:36 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1363870176.17680.33.camel@pasglop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1363865097-32764-2-git-send-email-grant.likely-s3s/WqlpOiPyB63q8FvJNQ@public.gmane.org>
On Thu, 2013-03-21 at 11:24 +0000, Grant Likely wrote:
> Device tree nodes are already treated as objects, and we already want to
> expose them to userspace which is done using the /proc filesystem today.
> Right now the kernel has to do a lot of work to keep the /proc view in
> sync with the in-kernel representation. If device_nodes are switched to
> be kobjects then the device tree code can be a whole lot simpler. It
> also turns out that switching to using /sysfs from /proc results in
> smaller code and data size, and the userspace ABI won't change if
> /proc/device-tree symlinks to /sys/device-tree
Here you say /sys/device-tree
> +What: /sys/firmware/ofw/../device-tree/
Here you say /sys/firmware/../device-tree/ ... (wtf are those .. ?)
And further down:
proc_symlink("device-tree", NULL, "/sys/firmware/ofw/device-tree-0");
Some confusion here ... at least _I_ am confused :-)
Then, you do this:
> +static bool of_init_complete = false;
The above requires some explanations
> +static int __of_node_add(struct device_node *np)
> +{
> +
> + const char *name;
> + struct property *pp;
> + static int extra = 0;
> + int rc;
> +
> + np->kobj.kset = of_kset;
> + if (!np->parent) {
> + /* Nodes without parents are new top level trees */
> + rc = kobject_add(&np->kobj, NULL, "device-tree-%i", extra++);
> +#if !defined(CONFIG_PROC_DEVICETREE)
> + /* Symlink to the new tree when PROC_DEVICETREE is disabled */
> + if (!rc && extra == 1)
> + proc_symlink("device-tree", NULL, "/sys/firmware/ofw/device-tree-0");
> +#endif /* CONFIG_PROC_DEVICETREE */
WTF is this business of having multiple top level trees ? Also that
local static extra is gross. What is this all about ?
> + } else {
> + name = kbasename(np->full_name);
> + if (!name || !name[0])
> + return -EINVAL;
> + rc = kobject_add(&np->kobj, &np->parent->kobj, "%s", name);
> + }
> + if (rc)
> + return rc;
> +
> + for_each_property_of_node(np, pp) {
> + /* Important: Don't leak passwords */
> + bool secure = strncmp(pp->name, "security-", 9) == 0;
> +
> + pp->attr.attr.name = pp->name;
> + pp->attr.attr.mode = secure ? S_IRUSR : S_IRUGO;
> + pp->attr.size = secure ? 0 : pp->length;
> + pp->attr.read = of_node_property_read;
> + rc = sysfs_create_bin_file(&np->kobj, &pp->attr);
> + WARN(rc, "error creating device node attribute\n");
Might want some better message (attribute name, node path, ...)
We have mechanisms to deal with collisions in proc devicetree that you
don't seem to have here (or am I missing something ?). The main source
of pain is a property and a child node having the same name (happens
regulary with l2-cache on macs for example).
Cheers,
Ben.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org,
Rob Herring <rob.herring@calxeda.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
davem@davemloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] of: Make device nodes kobjects so they show up in sysfs
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 13:49:36 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1363870176.17680.33.camel@pasglop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1363865097-32764-2-git-send-email-grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
On Thu, 2013-03-21 at 11:24 +0000, Grant Likely wrote:
> Device tree nodes are already treated as objects, and we already want to
> expose them to userspace which is done using the /proc filesystem today.
> Right now the kernel has to do a lot of work to keep the /proc view in
> sync with the in-kernel representation. If device_nodes are switched to
> be kobjects then the device tree code can be a whole lot simpler. It
> also turns out that switching to using /sysfs from /proc results in
> smaller code and data size, and the userspace ABI won't change if
> /proc/device-tree symlinks to /sys/device-tree
Here you say /sys/device-tree
> +What: /sys/firmware/ofw/../device-tree/
Here you say /sys/firmware/../device-tree/ ... (wtf are those .. ?)
And further down:
proc_symlink("device-tree", NULL, "/sys/firmware/ofw/device-tree-0");
Some confusion here ... at least _I_ am confused :-)
Then, you do this:
> +static bool of_init_complete = false;
The above requires some explanations
> +static int __of_node_add(struct device_node *np)
> +{
> +
> + const char *name;
> + struct property *pp;
> + static int extra = 0;
> + int rc;
> +
> + np->kobj.kset = of_kset;
> + if (!np->parent) {
> + /* Nodes without parents are new top level trees */
> + rc = kobject_add(&np->kobj, NULL, "device-tree-%i", extra++);
> +#if !defined(CONFIG_PROC_DEVICETREE)
> + /* Symlink to the new tree when PROC_DEVICETREE is disabled */
> + if (!rc && extra == 1)
> + proc_symlink("device-tree", NULL, "/sys/firmware/ofw/device-tree-0");
> +#endif /* CONFIG_PROC_DEVICETREE */
WTF is this business of having multiple top level trees ? Also that
local static extra is gross. What is this all about ?
> + } else {
> + name = kbasename(np->full_name);
> + if (!name || !name[0])
> + return -EINVAL;
> + rc = kobject_add(&np->kobj, &np->parent->kobj, "%s", name);
> + }
> + if (rc)
> + return rc;
> +
> + for_each_property_of_node(np, pp) {
> + /* Important: Don't leak passwords */
> + bool secure = strncmp(pp->name, "security-", 9) == 0;
> +
> + pp->attr.attr.name = pp->name;
> + pp->attr.attr.mode = secure ? S_IRUSR : S_IRUGO;
> + pp->attr.size = secure ? 0 : pp->length;
> + pp->attr.read = of_node_property_read;
> + rc = sysfs_create_bin_file(&np->kobj, &pp->attr);
> + WARN(rc, "error creating device node attribute\n");
Might want some better message (attribute name, node path, ...)
We have mechanisms to deal with collisions in proc devicetree that you
don't seem to have here (or am I missing something ?). The main source
of pain is a property and a child node having the same name (happens
regulary with l2-cache on macs for example).
Cheers,
Ben.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-03-21 12:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-03-21 11:24 Kobjectify device tree structures Grant Likely
[not found] ` < 1363865097-32764-3-git-send-email-grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
[not found] ` <1363870366. 3312.1.camel@pasglop>
[not found] ` <CACxGe6vSywW_iekAKmDMf5_TLLt5Hn+Jttq8kddq3vJ=AE+DQA@ mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <1363865097-32764-1-git-send-email-grant.likely-s3s/WqlpOiPyB63q8FvJNQ@public.gmane.org>
2013-03-21 11:24 ` [PATCH V2 1/2] of: Make device nodes kobjects so they show up in sysfs Grant Likely
2013-03-21 11:24 ` Grant Likely
[not found] ` <1363865097-32764-2-git-send-email-grant.likely-s3s/WqlpOiPyB63q8FvJNQ@public.gmane.org>
2013-03-21 12:49 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt [this message]
2013-03-21 12:49 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-03-21 20:31 ` Grant Likely
2013-03-21 11:24 ` [PATCH V2 2/2] of: remove /proc/device-tree Grant Likely
[not found] ` <1363865097-32764-3-git-send-email-grant.likely-s3s/WqlpOiPyB63q8FvJNQ@public.gmane.org>
2013-03-21 12:52 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-03-21 12:52 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-03-21 20:07 ` Grant Likely
2013-03-22 10:28 ` Grant Likely
2013-03-22 18:03 ` Nathan Fontenot
2013-03-22 19:29 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-03-22 23:44 ` Grant Likely
2013-11-15 16:10 ` Grant Likely
2013-03-21 12:39 ` Kobjectify device tree structures Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-03-21 12:41 ` Grant Likely
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=1363870176.17680.33.camel@pasglop \
--to=benh-xvmvhmargas8u2djnn8i7kb+6bgklq7r@public.gmane.org \
--cc=davem-fT/PcQaiUtIeIZ0/mPfg9Q@public.gmane.org \
--cc=devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org \
--cc=grant.likely-s3s/WqlpOiPyB63q8FvJNQ@public.gmane.org \
--cc=gregkh-hQyY1W1yCW8ekmWlsbkhG0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=rob.herring-bsGFqQB8/DxBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.