linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3 2/4] drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c: add new driver

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]

Message-ID: <20111108195854.GD24399@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com>
Date:	Tue, 8 Nov 2011 21:58:55 +0200
From:	Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>,
	Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>, rmallon@...il.com,
	Nikolaus Voss <n.voss@...nmann.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
	ben-linux@...ff.org, khali@...ux-fr.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 2/4] drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c: add new driver

Hi,

On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 07:39:30PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> But, that's something very different from your statement in your previous
> message about my alleged stance on *all* asm/*.h includes in drivers,
> which is FALSE.

http://marc.info/?l=linux-arm-kernel&m=132077795410718&w=2

I don't see me complaining about *all* headers anywhere in that message.
I did generalize, but I didn't stated you were complaining about *all*
headers. Go back and read it for yourself.

> > Now, all the other topics I agree and, in fact, have been pushing for
> > that as I can. Specially with regards to IP cores being shared among
> > several architectures (see drivers/usb/dwc3 where I have a core driver
> > shared between ARM and PCI/x86).
> 
> Good, so you've just taken back most of what you said in your previous
> message.

of course not... maybe you misunderstood me. My whole point was to avoid
using cpu_is_* exactly because it would prevent this driver from
compiling anywhere outside of ARM builds.

here's where you chiped in:

http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=132077706910296&w=2

And a small quote:

| On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 05:23:46PM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
| > On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 04:15:10PM +0100, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
| > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
| > > Hash: SHA1
| > > 
| > > On 11/08/2011 03:41 PM, Felipe Balbi :
| > > 
| > > >> +	if (cpu_is_at91rm9200()) {			/*  AT91RM9200 Errata #22 */
| > > > 
| > > > I don't think you should be using cpu_is_* on drivers.
| > > 
| > > It is a common pattern in at91 drivers and has worked for ages.
| > > Do you think it is related to the need to be able to compile the
| > > driver for any SoC in the case of multi-SoC zImage support?
| > 
| > we have drivers compiling on multiple OMAP versions without those
| > hacks.
| > Generally, we check the IP revision for that. Don't you have a
| > Revision register of some sort ?

You see ? I was asking $author to try and use some revision register in
order to apply erratas instead of using cpu_is_at91rm9200().

-- 
balbi

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)