linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v13 7/9] ACPI: Translate the I/O range of non-MMIO devices before scanning

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 16 Feb 2018 14:48:46 +0000
From:   John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
CC:     Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
        "Rob Herring" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
        Dann Frazier <dann.frazier@...onical.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>, Corey Minyard <minyard@....org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 7/9] ACPI: Translate the I/O range of non-MMIO devices
 before scanning

On 16/02/2018 14:42, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 7:07 PM, John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com> wrote:
>> On 14/02/2018 16:16, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>> +       list_for_each_entry(rentry, &resource_list, node)
>>>>>>>>> +               resources[count++] = *rentry->res;
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It has similarities with acpi_create_platform_device().
>>>>>>> I guess we can utilize existing code.
>>>>
>>>>> For sure, this particular segment is effectively same as part of
>>>>> acpi_create_platform_device():
>>>
>>> Not the same, acpi_create_platform_device() does a bit more than
>>> copying the resources. If it indeed makes no hurt...
>>>
>>>>>         list_for_each_entry(rentry, &resource_list, node)
>>>>>             acpi_platform_fill_resource(adev, rentry->res,
>>>>>                             &resources[count++]);
>>>>> So is your idea to refactor this common segment into a helper function?
>>>
>>> ...I would go with helper.
>>>
>>
>> Hi Andy,
>>
>> Since the plan now is that this code is no longer going to be added to
>> drivers/acpi, but instead pushed to the LLDD, I am pondering whether we
>> should still factor out of this common code. Opinion?
>
> I would still go with a common helper. Though, as first step, we can
> make it lazy, i.e. put a comment in your code, like a todo notice (w/o
> TODO word :-) ) to consider a common helper.

Fine, I was also thinking that I don't want to do this now as it could 
make merging the patchset more complex. For now, the ACPI change I plan 
creates no dependencies.

Cheers,
John

>