linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] of/gpio: Implement GPIOLIB notifier hooks

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 6 Mar 2010 03:28:23 +0300
From:	Anton Vorontsov <avorontsov@...mvista.com>
To:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Brownell <dbrownell@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
	Bill Gatliff <bgat@...lgatliff.com>,
	Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbaryshkov@...il.com>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] of/gpio: Implement GPIOLIB notifier hooks

On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 04:47:06PM -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
[...]
> >> I'm not really very comfortable with the whole
> >> approach being taken.  And, while I acked the first patch in the
> >> series, that patch isn't needed by anything except patches 2, 3 & 4.

But you didn't answer my replies, ie were sitting silent like for
a month? So you didn't give my any chance to make them comfortable
to you.

Is there any punishment ready for that? ;-) I see one: apply
these patches, and rework this stuff as you like when you have some
time? Or tell me your idea, and I'll do the rework for you, in
2.6.35.

But in the meantime, these patches can be nicely used to support
I2C/SPI GPIO controllers.

> >> Also, the OF stuff is a moving target at the moment with all the
> >> rework is being undertaken.  I'd rather let this series sit out for
> >> another merge cycle so that the underlying OF stuff can settle down.
> >
> > OK, please take it up on-list?
> 
> Okay.  I'm making this reply on list.
> 
> Anton, as I've stated before, I'm not thrilled with the approach.

Again, great timing for telling that, I must say. Yes, you said
it once with some minor arguments (doubts and questions), to which
I replied long ago. Then nothing.

> Combine that with the changes being made to drivers/of right now and
> the addition device tree to ARM and other architectures, my preference
> is to let this patch series lie fallow for one more merge cycle so
> that things can settle out in the OF infrastructure code.

How exactly OF rework affects these patches? And why some rework
should be used as an excuse for not adding a hardware support?

-- 
Anton Vorontsov
email: cbouatmailru@...il.com
irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/