linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] misc: apds990x: move header file out of I2C realm

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:   Mon, 22 May 2017 17:56:49 +0200
From:   Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] misc: apds990x: move header file out of I2C realm

Hi Arnd,

> > -#include <linux/i2c/apds990x.h>
> > +#include <linux/platform_data/apds990x.h>
> 
> The new location is clearly better than the old, but I notice that in both
> patches, there is not a single definition for the platform_data structure
> in the kernel and both drivers refuse to load when they do not get
> passed valid platform_data.

Yes, this is true for quite some drivers I am moving around. I think
there are two reasons: a) the board code never made it upstream
b) DT conversion happened and platform_data is now cruft. As mentioned
in the cover-letter, I didn't dive deeper for all the drivers.

> Should we also remove the drivers or move them into staging?

I'd prefer to keep them. If they are needed again, DT conversion is
likely and easier than restarting from scratch. Guenter Roeck also
prefers to not unnecessarily annoy people who might have out-of-tree
board code. So, as long as they are not painful, let's keep them?

Regards,

   Wolfram

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)