linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] mfd: Fix runtime warning caused by duplicate device registration

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: <20120705132021.GJ4111@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Date:	Thu, 5 Jul 2012 14:20:21 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linus.walleij@...ricsson.com, arnd@...db.de, sameo@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mfd: Fix runtime warning caused by duplicate device
 registration

On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 02:12:09PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On 05/07/12 14:03, Mark Brown wrote:
> >On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 01:55:50PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:

> >>Then were would you register it, if not here?

> >Same place as for DT.

> That is a possibility, but the idea is to reduce code in the
> platform area, not add to it. We'd also need a completely separate

But surely this would, if anything, remove code?  You already have the
code to do the registration in the MFD so all you're going to be doing
here is removing the code from 

> platform_data structure to the one we use for platform registration,
> as much of it has now been moved into Device Tree. The regulators
> are a good example of this, but there's also GPIO information which
> is no longer relevant etc.

Hrm, the usual pattern for this stuff is that the DT is parsed into
platform data so the DT code is isolated to the parser.  It sounds like
you've got a very different structure here?

> I do believe that registering the AB8500 from the DB8500 is
> appropriate though, for the simple reason that the AB8500 is a
> sub-device to the DB8500. I think this is the correct thing to do.
> But anyway, as I said before, that ship has sailed. We _already_ do
> this. All this patch does is prevent the AB8500 from being
> registered twice when DT is not enabled.

Well, it also introduces code into mainline which is likely to be used
as a template by other people - I'd be especially worried about the next
ST platform ending up repeating the same mistakes.  If the code is so
separate perhaps it's better to just remove the non-DT support?

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