linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] IIO: st_accel_i2c.c: Use probe

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, 4 Jul 2018 14:37:51 +0200
From:   Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@...hile0.org>
To:     Nikolaus Voss <nikolaus.voss@...wensteinmedical.de>
Cc:     Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
        Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo.bianconi83@...il.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Xiongfeng Wang <xiongfeng.wang@...aro.org>,
        linux-iio <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        nv@...n.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] IIO: st_accel_i2c.c: Use probe_new() instead of probe()

On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 2:31 PM, Nikolaus Voss
<nikolaus.voss@...wensteinmedical.de> wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jul 2018, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 1:46 PM, Nikolaus Voss
>> <nikolaus.voss@...wensteinmedical.de> wrote:
>>
>
> [snip]
>
>> But this discussion isn't really related to your patch. I think is
>> correct but just said that (b) wasn't a justification to leave the I2C
>> table, points (a) and (c) are though. I won't really be convinced that
>> the fallback is the correct thing to do or even a good idea.
>
>
> I didn't want to annoy you, I just wanted to understand why you think
> fallback is such a bad thing that you call it a bug. And I see, it has its
> drawbacks ;-). Anyway, thanks for taking the time to clarify this,
>

Oh, I'm not annoyed, sorry if I sounded that way. What I tried to say
is that I've a strong opinion on this and won't be convinced otherwise
:)

So for me is a bug because that would mean that either an entry is
missing in an OF device table or a DTS has a node with a compatible
string without a vendor prefix.

> Niko
>
> [snip]
>

Best regards,
Javier