linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] Input: silead

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, 22 Feb 2017 11:25:54 -0300
From:   Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>
To:     Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        linux-input@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Input: silead - Add OF device ID table

Hello Hans,

On 02/22/2017 11:23 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
> HI,
> 
> On 22-02-17 13:45, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>> Hello Hans,
>>
>> Thanks for your feedback.
>>
>> On 02/22/2017 05:29 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 21-02-17 19:12, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>>>> The driver doesn't have a struct of_device_id table but supported devices
>>>> are registered via Device Trees. This is working on the assumption that a
>>>> I2C device registered via OF will always match a legacy I2C device ID and
>>>> that the MODALIAS reported will always be of the form i2c:<device>.
>>>>
>>>> But this could change in the future so the correct approach is to have an
>>>> OF device ID table if the devices are registered via OF.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>>  drivers/input/touchscreen/silead.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
>>>>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/input/touchscreen/silead.c b/drivers/input/touchscreen/silead.c
>>>> index 404830a4a366..aae3ba1c3e02 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/input/touchscreen/silead.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/input/touchscreen/silead.c
>>>> @@ -580,12 +580,26 @@ static const struct acpi_device_id silead_ts_acpi_match[] = {
>>>>  MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, silead_ts_acpi_match);
>>>>  #endif
>>>>
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
>>>> +static const struct of_device_id silead_ts_of_match[] = {
>>>> +    { .compatible = "silead,gsl1680" },
>>>> +    { .compatible = "silead,gsl1688" },
>>>> +    { .compatible = "silead,gsl3670" },
>>>> +    { .compatible = "silead,gsl3675" },
>>>> +    { .compatible = "silead,gsl3692" },
>>>> +    { .compatible = "silead,mssl1680" },
>>>> +    { },
>>>> +};
>>>
>>> Please drop the mssl1680 compatible, that id an ACPI ugliness
>>
>> Ok, I'll drop that compatible if isn't needed for Device Tree.
>>
>>> which we don't need for devicetree.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure I understood your ACPI comment,
> 
> There is no silead chip named mssl1680, the mssl stands
> for microsoft silead (or so I believe) and it is used
> to identify the gsl1680 in some ACPI tables.
> 

Ah, thanks a lot for the clarification. I'll re-spin the
patch removing this entry then and adding your explanation
in the commit message.

> Regards,
> 
> Hans

Best regards,
-- 
Javier Martinez Canillas
Open Source Group
Samsung Research America