linux-kernel - Re: [patch 4/4] MFD: Change mfd platform device usage to wrapper platform

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:	Thu, 10 Jul 2008 01:13:11 +0400
From:	Dmitry Baryshkov <dbaryshkov@...il.com>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	ian <spyro@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [patch 4/4] MFD: Change mfd platform device usage to wrapper
	platform_device

On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 10:03:14PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 03:52:08PM +0400, Dmitry wrote:
> > 2008/7/9 ian <spyro@....com>:
> > > On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 15:15 +0400, Dmitry wrote:
> > >> NAK.
> > >> 0) It was discussed yesterday on the list and the decision was to go
> > >> in a different way.
> > >
> > > It was?
> > >
> > > I prefer the wrapped way personally...
> > 
> > In any case IMO it's better to call platform_device_register() rather than
> >  device_initialise()/platform_device_add().
> > 
> > Samuel? Russell?
> 
> WTF???  That's just completely wrong - assuming the internals of how the
> platform device alloc API works...
> 
> What it's clear from my *brief* read of this thread is that the MFD
> support doesn't seem to be ready for mainline yet - there's clearly issues
> here that need further work.
> 
> Given that, and where we are (there's maybe two of *my* days left until
> the merge window opens) I'm *very* tempted to drop the MFD support out
> of my tree for this merge window - which basically means removing
> 5127/1, 5128/1 and 5129/1.

Why? We were talking about improvements, not the current code found in
the referenced patches. They may be not the best ones, but they contain
pretty clean code which works. The only issue with current code is that
tc6393xb depends on some arm-specific defines, so we should either apply
patch submitted today ("tc6393xb irq fixes") or make "depends on ARM".

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/