linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] vfio: platform: Add generic DT reset controller support

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:   Thu, 12 Apr 2018 08:54:23 +0200
From:   Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        Baptiste Reynal <b.reynal@...tualopensystems.com>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] vfio: platform: Add generic DT reset controller
 support

Hi Geert,

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:39:19AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Simon,
> 
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:22 AM, Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 05:53:47PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

...

> >> @@ -217,6 +236,9 @@ static int vfio_platform_call_reset(struct vfio_platform_device *vdev,
> >>       } else if (vdev->of_reset) {
> >>               dev_info(vdev->device, "reset\n");
> >>               return vdev->of_reset(vdev);
> >> +     } else if (vdev->reset_control) {
> >> +             dev_info(vdev->device, "reset\n");
> >
> > Would it be useful to differentiate between the above two informational
> > messages?
> 
> Probably not, there's also no differentiation with the message for the
> ACPI case above (out of visible context).

Thanks, I agree that it seems fine to leave things as you have them above.