Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] bus: Introduce firewall controller framework

[Greg KH]

On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 12:41:07PM +0000, Benjamin GAIGNARD wrote:
> 
> On 2/14/20 10:40 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 05:05:07PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 10:06 AM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Why do people want to abuse the platform bus so much?  If a device is on
> >>> a bus that can have such a controller, then it is on a real bus, use it!
> >> I'm not saying it is a good thing, but the reason why it is (ab)used so
> >> much can be found in:
> >> drivers/of/platform.c
> >>
> >> TL;DR: struct platform_device is the Device McDeviceFace and
> >> platform bus the Bus McBusFace used by the device tree parser since
> >> it is slightly to completely unaware of what devices it is actually
> >> spawning.
> > <snip>
> >
> > Yeah, great explaination, and I understand.  DT stuff really is ok to be
> > on a platform bus, as that's what almost all of them are.
> >
> > But, when you try to start messing around with things like this
> > "firewall" says it is doing, it's then obvious that this really isn't a
> > DT like thing, but rather you do have a bus involved with a controller
> > so that should be used instead.
> 
> Ok but how put in place a new bus while keeping the devices on platform
> bus to avoid changing all the drivers ?

You don't, you put them all on your real bus, as that is what you now
have.

> > Or just filter away the DT stuff so that the kernel never even sees
> > those devices, which might just be simplest :)
> 
> yes but we lost the possibility to change the firewall configuration at
> run time. I do expect to be able to describe in the DT firewall configuration
> and to use them at run time. That could allow, for example, to handover
> a HW block to the coprocessor when the main core is going to be suspended
> to save power.

Then use a real bus :)

thanks,

greg k-h