On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 01:53:30PM +0100, Jens Wiklander wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 05:16:15PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Monday, January 23, 2017 10:08:53 AM CET Jens Wiklander wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 05:57:51PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > On Thursday, January 19, 2017 3:56:23 PM CET Jens Wiklander wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 05:28:17PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > > > > Does the platform devices really need cleaning? I mean > > > > > of_platform_default_populate_init() creates a bunch of platform devices > > > > > which are just left there even if unused. Here we're doing the same > > > > > thing except that we're doing it for a specific node in the DT. > > > > > > > > I think it will work if you don't clean them up, but it feels wrong > > > > to have a loadable module that creates devices when loaded but doesn't > > > > remove them when unloaded. > > > > > > > > This could be done differently by having the device creation done in > > > > one driver and the the user of that device in another driver, but I > > > > think just killing off the device achieves the same in a simpler way. > > > > > > I see your point. My final concern here is that with device we got > > > entries in sysfs and uevents that could be used to automatically start > > > the correct supplicant. Different drivers are likely to require > > > different supplicants. Starting the correct supplicant based on uevents > > > is a quite elegant solution which I'm not sure how to support when > > > skipping devices. Perhaps I could create an object below > > > <sysfs>/firmware/tee ? > > > > Putting the objects somewhere other than /sys/devices sounds good, yes. > > This would also help with TEE implementations that might get probed > > differently. > > > > I think the natural place would be /sys/class/tee/, as we normally > > require something in /sys/class anyway to support the character > > device. > > > > /sys/firmware/tee/ sounds less fitting, as there other TEE implementations > > are not necessarily firmware based, as you point out. > > /sys/firmware/op-tee certainly makes sense for anything that is specific > > to OP-TEE in particular, while /sys/class/tee would be for anything > > that uses the ioctl interface. This part is particularly important to > > get right from the start, just like the ioctls themselves we can't make > > incompatible changes here later once there are users relying on the > > upstream kernel interfaces. > > /sys/class/tee/ sounds good, I'll use that. It's more or less what we > also have today. I'm sorry, it seems a struct device has to be used in order to put stuff under /sys/class/tee/. Or am I missing something? Thanks, Jens -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
