linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mfd: Fix MACRO for commonly declared MFD cell attributes

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:	Wed, 16 Mar 2016 08:42:19 +0000
From:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:	Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>
Cc:	Rhyland Klein <rklein@...dia.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: Fix MACRO for commonly declared MFD cell attributes

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016, Laxman Dewangan wrote:

> 
> On Friday 11 March 2016 02:09 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> >On Wed, 09 Mar 2016, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
> >>On Wednesday 02 March 2016 06:38 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> >>>On Mon, 29 Feb 2016, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On Friday 26 February 2016 10:05 PM, Rhyland Klein wrote:
> >>>>>Did you not see warnings like this when you compiled the kernel? Did you
> >>>>>find a different approach than what I proposed above to deal with it?
> >>>>>I'd like to get this in soon so that when the max77620 drivers are all
> >>>>>in and using it, it should be functional.
> >>>>>
> >>>>I think the following change also crash in runtime:
> >>>>
> >>>>/***
> >>>>commit e60a946f05db2cac857025da6ffb72df48d3be54
> >>>>Author: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
> >>>>
> >>>>     mfd: ab8500: Provide a small example using new MFD cell MACROs
> >>>>
> >>>>***/
> >>>>
> >>>>Should we have something MFD_CELL_RES, MFD_CELL_RES_PDATA,
> >>>>MFD_CELL_PDATA, for more common user and not to pass the NULL here.
> >>>I'll have a re-think about this.
> >>Did you get chance to look into this? Probably, I need to send my
> >>mfd series once this get fixed before that series applied.
> >Nothing is going to happen until v4.6 now.  It's too late in the
> >release cycle to be making such a significant addition, and I'd like
> >the change to sit in -next for a good while before going in.
> >
> OK, so can I use the local initializations in my max77620 patches
> and resend?
> Then later we can have cleanups for part only?
> 
> This is because if we get in next release then there is some other
> sub modules of the max77620 like clocks, watchdog, power etc which
> can go on their subsystem if common header is available.
> 
> Sorry if I am asking too much..

For quick accptance, just submit using the normal un-MACRO'ed
structure.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog