Re: [PATCH] Do not disable driver and bus shutdown hook when class shutdown hook is set.

Michal Suchánek <[email protected]>
Newsgroups net.sourceforge.lists.tpmdd-devel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On 2017-08-10 18:30, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:18:11PM +0200, Michal Suchánek wrote:

>> > Existing bus implementations do properly chain to driver shutdown (eg
>> > look at mmc_bus_shutdown) and it appears to have been written like
>> 
>> Neither isa nor ibmebus does. These are two random buses I tried to
>> look at.
> 
> I'm not following, I see this:
> 
> static void ibmebus_bus_device_shutdown(struct device *dev)
> {
>         struct platform_device *of_dev = to_platform_device(dev);
>         struct platform_driver *drv = to_platform_driver(dev->driver);
> 
>         if (dev->driver && drv->shutdown)
>                 drv->shutdown(of_dev);
> }
> 
> It looks to me like in this case the struct device_driver shutdown is
> not used, and instead the struct platform_driver shutdown is called.

And it is not used even if a device driver sets it and expects it to 
run.

> 
>> > this so that the bus can insert code before and after calling the
>> > driver shutdown.
>> 
>> So basically there is bus pre-shutdown and post-shutdown hook jumbled
>> together in one function.
> 
> and a redirect, apparently.
> 
>> While I can understand the concept of post-shutdown hook I wonder
>> what gross hack would require a pre-shutdown hook.
> 
> TPM requires pre-shutdown.

Yes, a class pre-shutdown. Not a bus pre-shutdown, however.

I have no idea what business has a bus driver before a device shuts 
down.

> 
>> The Linux development process at its best. There is poor design
>> implemented so when touching the code it is extended to worse because
> 
> I'm not sure I completely agree, there is obviously a lot going on with
> bus->shutdown.
> 
> If you want to go ahead with your patch then please also rename the
> class shutdown to shutdown_pre to make it clear it is doing something
> different.

That makes sense.

Thanks

Michal
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.