Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Benjamin GAIGNARD <benjamin.gaignard@st.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        "robh@kernel.org" <robh@kernel.org>,
        "Loic PALLARDY" <loic.pallardy@st.com>,
        "arnd@arndb.de" <arnd@arndb.de>,
        "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        "system-dt@lists.openampproject.org" 
        <system-dt@lists.openampproject.org>,
        "s.hauer@pengutronix.de" <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "lkml@metux.net" <lkml@metux.net>,
        "linux-imx@nxp.com" <linux-imx@nxp.com>,
        "kernel@pengutronix.de" <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
        "sudeep.holla@arm.com" <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
        "fabio.estevam@nxp.com" <fabio.estevam@nxp.com>,
        "stefano.stabellini@xilinx.com" <stefano.stabellini@xilinx.com>,
        "shawnguo@kernel.org" <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] bus: Introduce firewall controller framework
Thread-Topic: [PATCH v2 2/7] bus: Introduce firewall controller framework
Thread-Index: AQHV1fD3WqS5xyjWNkazyajQl95bjqgAKU6AgAANnwCAAARlAIAAO2IAgADdioCAAALMAIAAF6SAgAL4AQA=
Date:   Fri, 31 Jan 2020 08:37:27 +0000
Message-ID: <0b109c05-24cf-a1c4-6072-9af8a61f45b2@st.com>
References: <20200128153806.7780-1-benjamin.gaignard@st.com>
 <20200128153806.7780-3-benjamin.gaignard@st.com>
 <20200128155243.GC3438643@kroah.com>
 <0dd9dc95-1329-0ad4-d03d-99899ea4f574@st.com>
 <20200128165712.GA3667596@kroah.com>
 <62b38576-0e1a-e30e-a954-a8b6a7d8d897@st.com>
 <CACRpkdY427EzpAt7f5wwqHpRS_SHM8Fvm+cFrwY8op0E_J+D9Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200129095240.GA3852081@kroah.com> <20200129111717.GA3928@sirena.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20200129111717.GA3928@sirena.org.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.9.0
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.75.127.51]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <638172DDBE744F46AA57A5E08293B1A9@st.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.138,18.0.572
 definitions=2020-01-31_02:2020-01-30,2020-01-31 signatures=0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


On 1/29/20 12:17 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 10:52:40AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
>
>> It just needs to be part of the bus logic for the specific bus that this
>> "firewall" is on.  Just like we do the same thing for USB or thunderbolt
>> devices.  Put this in the bus-specific code please.
> I'd expect that this is going to affect at least platform and AMBA
> buses.

Correct me if I'm wrong but creating a new type of bus would mean

that all the drivers living on this bus must be changed to register=20
themselves on this bus ?

Or does a solution exist to let them live on the platform bus and call=20
firewalled bus before been probed ?

All the impacted drivers could work on the existing bus with or without=20
the firewall so I don't want to break

that.

Benjamin