linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scpi: Add hardware dependencies

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, 25 Jan 2017 16:04:28 +0100
From:   Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
To:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Jon Medhurst (Tixy)" <tixy@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scpi: Add hardware dependencies

On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 14:20:53 +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On 25/01/17 14:14, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 13:56:23 +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> >> None, hence I didn't say you are wrong ;). I am fine having the check if
> >> it breaks for any other architecture with COMPILE_TEST.
> > 
> > Not sure what you mean here... The purpose of COMPILE_TEST is to allow
> > limiting the scope of a driver withing hurting the build test coverage.
> 
> No I agree with adding COMPILE_TEST just not ARM || ARM64

That doesn't make any sense. The only purpose of COMPILE_TEST is to be
or'd with an architecture or platform dependency. If you disagree with
adding an architecture or platform dependency, you can't agree with
adding COMPILE_TEST.

> >> Also you have mentioned it fixes 8f1498c03d15, have you seen any
> >> regression with that commit ? If so, details in the commit would be
> >> good.
> > 
> > Before 8f1498c03d15, the dependency on ARM_MHU made the driver only
> > visible on ARM kernels. Since 8f1498c03d15, the driver is proposed to
> > all, which I think isn't correct. 
> 
> I disagree here. It depends on mailbox as we use mailbox API. And it is
> now used on AmLogic Meson series of SoC. So it *is correct*.

I'm fine with depending on MAILBOX, I never proposed to change that.
But Meson are ARM SoCs. So what's the problem with making the driver
depend on ARM?

> > In that sense my proposed patch is
> > fixing a (user-friendliness) regression. But nothing serious.
> 
> Can you elaborate ? What's that *user-friendliness regression* ?
> build/boot/... ? I just need more details.

>From a distribution kernel maintainer point of view, having to answer
dozens of irrelevant questions with every kernel version update is
highly user-unfriendly. If all drivers could have proper hardware
dependencies from the start, it would be a lot easier.

And same holds for virtually everyone configuring his/her kernel. I'm
building a kernel for my x86 desktop PC, "make oldconfig" shouldn't
bother me with ARM drivers.

As a side note, there's no finger-pointing implied by Fixes: tags. They
are only meant to help people backporting patches, so that they know if
something they backported is later fixed up. It does not imply anything
regarding how serious the problem was.

-- 
Jean Delvare
SUSE L3 Support