From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1E371DEFFD; Mon, 17 Mar 2025 16:48:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1742230091; cv=none; b=Wrl1T+CSnDLAAUe4JwdiABbK3JlghXZKqqB19Bsd3lbjUoas1MyQvYSRebCnv01OvkIbJk2L7jvc8odjbnvGzsXBDDUMonTYwf6cf90ZIFDIy0xbRbzwKHv4zN5JGavRURVVMrAmioSAGgELQPUDoZyfLsAZYWTUBKofScBA5D8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1742230091; c=relaxed/simple; bh=6LRjey91kAKbtfGT1kdcYHXdkjzmNzELr3+IyaNjcS0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=E0LGuR5c3dRlpA/MhUe7lD4FiVOvrNIjJrfPxHy9duObMzVhXZH25ijbk3UeSKhu+nqLyaxs+qxYpC+BfGHOtres8R/LLmEEgdf2GqsN88C4WGGLvdUzzoNK9J0X/+mjQQEfOcoE2AeBn0awAcRiJ9mgluk+lTlGFv2KnatI3Vc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b=yTSNjT/J; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b="yTSNjT/J" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 364ABC4CEE3; Mon, 17 Mar 2025 16:48:10 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1742230091; bh=6LRjey91kAKbtfGT1kdcYHXdkjzmNzELr3+IyaNjcS0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=yTSNjT/J5Efwj3gx46L4Ufx0r3DJe6UhGPJayknglFogTlfkykNgDkPmIXSkupWHS p1wAVNw6B4xvlrEvLvL0GGEW00yuf1bTabAWYWNz0/Vo9HRUE6xxXoEi4lxJ0dCrQl +OKNVOqflFYIU6/sCQ9HSYROAwq9Mv/c7DQ3Ztn0= Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2025 17:46:46 +0100 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Sudeep Holla Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andre Przywara , Herbert Xu , Jeff Johnson , linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] hwrng: arm-smccc-trng - transition to the faux device interface Message-ID: <2025031731-anyhow-askew-5731@gregkh> References: <20250317-plat2faux_dev-v1-0-5fe67c085ad5@arm.com> <20250317-plat2faux_dev-v1-2-5fe67c085ad5@arm.com> <2025031748-deface-wasting-b635@gregkh> <2025031709-unmoved-carton-c130@gregkh> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 02:43:21PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 03:30:15PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 02:22:45PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 02:04:27PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 10:13:14AM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > > > +MODULE_ALIAS("faux:smccc_trng"); > > > > > > > > Why do you need a branch new alias you just made up? Please don't add > > > > that for these types of devices, that's not going to work at all (just > > > > like the platform alias really doesn't work well. > > > > > > > > > > Sure I will drop all of those alias. One question I have if the idea of > > > creating a macro for this is good or bad ? I need this initial condition > > > flag to make use of such a macro, so I didn't go for it, but it does > > > remove some boiler-plate code. > > > > > > Let me know what do you think of it ? > > > > > > Regards, > > > Sudeep > > > > > > -->8 > > > diff --git i/include/linux/device/faux.h w/include/linux/device/faux.h > > > index 9f43c0e46aa4..8af3eaef281a 100644 > > > --- i/include/linux/device/faux.h > > > +++ w/include/linux/device/faux.h > > > @@ -66,4 +66,30 @@ static inline void faux_device_set_drvdata(struct faux_device *faux_dev, void *d > > > dev_set_drvdata(&faux_dev->dev, data); > > > } > > > > > > +#define module_faux_driver(name, tag, init_cond) \ > > > +static struct faux_device_ops tag##_ops = { \ > > > + .probe = tag##_probe, \ > > > + .remove = tag##_remove, \ > > > +}; \ > > > + \ > > > +static struct faux_device *tag##_dev; \ > > > + \ > > > +static int __init tag##_init(void) \ > > > +{ \ > > > + if (!(init_cond)) \ > > > + return 0; \ > > > + tag##_dev = faux_device_create(name, NULL, &tag##_ops); \ > > > + if (!tag##_dev) \ > > > + return -ENODEV; \ > > > + \ > > > + return 0; \ > > > +} \ > > > +module_init(tag##_init); \ > > > + \ > > > +static void __exit tag##_exit(void) \ > > > +{ \ > > > + faux_device_destroy(tag##_dev); \ > > > +} \ > > > +module_exit(tag##_exit); \ > > > > Yes, I see that some of your changes could be moved to use this, so I > > think it is worth it. > > > > But why can't you use module_driver() here? Ah, that init_cond? And > > the device. Hm, why not put the init_cond in the probe callback? That > > should make this macro simpler. > > > > I tried to keep the creation of the device itself conditional the way > it is today. Deferring the check to probe means the device gets created > unconditionally but won't be probed which is fine I guess. I was thinking > that device shouldn't show up on the bus if the condition is not met to > match the current scenario. I might be overthinking there. It will not show up anywhere if the probe call fails. > > And don't use "tag", that's an odd term here, just copy what > > module_driver() does instead please. > > > > Sure, I will not use it. It was just a name that came to my mind. > > Also creating the macro builds the dependency. Do you prefer to push the > changes as is and the macro in one release and make use of the macro later. Let's see a series that adds the macro and uses it and we can figure it out from there. If the macro is sane, I can just take that now for 6.15-rc1 and then you can send the others to the different subsystems after that shows up. thanks, greg k-h