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: 14+ 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>
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 12:49 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt [this message]
2013-03-21 20:31 ` Grant Likely
2013-03-21 11:24 ` [PATCH V2 2/2] of: remove /proc/device-tree Grant Likely
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@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=grant.likely@secretlab.ca \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rob.herring@calxeda.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox