linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 00/12] Add ACPI _DSD and unified device properties support

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Fri, 17 Oct 2014 20:04:52 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>
CC:	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	Bryan Wu <cooloney@...il.com>,
	Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/12] Add ACPI _DSD and unified device properties support



On October 17, 2014 2:01:33 PM CEST, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
>Hi Everyone,
>
>Hving had a couple of chats with Grant and Arnd during LinuxCon EU/LPC,
>we
>now have version 5 taking all feedback into account (hopefully).

Awesome, that was really fast. I'm currently on my way his me in the train, replying from my phone, but it looks good now. I'll have a more detailed look next week but I'm definitely happy to see this go in (to next and 3.19) now, any details we still find can be fixed on top.

> In
>short, if
>we are passed a struct fwnode_handle pointer, we can get from it to the
>appropriate device node pointer (either struct acpi_device or struct
>device_node)
>using container_of() after we've checked the type.  This is needed for
>the code
>that needs to access child nodes of a device in case when they don't
>have
>struct device representations (whatever the reason).  This has been
>suggested
>by Grant and pretty much everyone involved agrees that it's better that
>the
>alternatives presented so far.

Yes, it's nice enough that I now take back all the objections I had for the child accessory API.

        Arnd
--
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/