Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932358Ab1CWJiq (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Mar 2011 05:38:46 -0400 Received: from earthlight.etchedpixels.co.uk ([81.2.110.250]:40188 "EHLO www.etchedpixels.co.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932085Ab1CWJip (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Mar 2011 05:38:45 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 09:38:47 +0000 From: Alan Cox To: Nicolas Pitre Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt , andy.green@linaro.org, Jaswinder Singh , Linux USB list , lkml , arnd@arndb.de, broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com, roger.quadros@nokia.com, greg@kroah.com, grant.likely@secretlab.ca Subject: Re: RFC: Platform data for onboard USB assets Message-ID: <20110323093847.55e9dbba@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> In-Reply-To: References: <4D79F068.2080009@linaro.org> <1300828125.2402.300.camel@pasglop> <4D8924B6.8040403@linaro.org> <1300842219.2402.309.camel@pasglop> <1300850595.2402.320.camel@pasglop> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.8 (GTK+ 2.22.0; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Face: 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 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1611 Lines: 37 > > Does it make sense however to add platform data for generic probed > > devices ? I don't think so. > > Generally speaking, this wouldn't make sense. but this is a case where > a generically probed device happens to be used in a very specific > hardware design with its own quirks. in that very particular case then > it certainly makes some sense. If it's a very specific hardware design it can do its own very specific internal private kernel patch, or little config app in user space. There isn't a valid reason to inflict that complexity on the other 99.999999% of users. > actual device registration. So, while this is true that there is a > possibility for misuse, in practice this is rather unlikely to go very > far without being noticed, and therefore this argument alone is rather > weak in support of a significant world order change. You mean it'll get missed and years later will get compiled into some other device and a joker with a custom USB widget will add the ids to his widget and declare it an exploit ? The other thing being overlooked is that for board specific horrors you can still put them in udev quite easily if your udev happens to know how to parse some kind of firmware provided table. That might even be bits of your device tree. The kernel simply shouldn't get involved in machine specific namespace fights. Alan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/