linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] mfd: anatop: permit adata be NULL when access register

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: <20120514084810.GD20367@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net>
Date:	Mon, 14 May 2012 16:48:11 +0800
From:	Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...escale.com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
CC:	Richard Zhao <richard.zhao@...aro.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <paul.liu@...aro.org>,
	Richard Zhao <richard.zhao@...escale.com>,
	<sameo@...ux.intel.com>, <shawn.guo@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mfd: anatop: permit adata be NULL when access
 register

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 09:08:36AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 11:51:38AM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> 
> > From what I see, it's reasonable.  Then the immediate question I have
> > is, should we remove "struct anatop *adata" from anatop_read_reg and
> > anatop_write_reg completely?
> 
> Given the way these things tend to go it's probably guaranteeing that
> your next round of SoCs will have two register compatible anatop blocks :)

Considering anatop block tends to be a container of misc hardware
control bits, I haven't really seen any possibility that the future
SoCs will have multiple anatop blocks.

-- 
Regards,
Shawn

--
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/