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  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:	Mon, 22 Sep 2014 12:05:22 +0100
From:	Liviu Dudau <>
To:	Bjorn Helgaas <>
Cc:	Arnd Bergmann <>, Rob Herring <>,
	Jason Gunthorpe <>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <>,
	Catalin Marinas <>,
	Will Deacon <>,
	Russell King <>,
	linux-pci <>,
	Linus Walleij <>,
	Tanmay Inamdar <>,
	Grant Likely <>,
	Sinan Kaya <>,
	Jingoo Han <>,
	Kukjin Kim <>,
	Suravee Suthikulanit <>,
	linux-arch <>,
	LKML <>,
	Device Tree ML <>,
	LAKML <>,
	"" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 07/10] OF: Introduce helper function for getting PCI

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:03:13PM +0100, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 02:30:22AM +0100, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> > Add of_pci_get_domain_nr() to retrieve the PCI domain number
> > of a given device from DT. If the information is not present,
> > the function can be requested to allocate a new domain number.
> Is of_pci_get_domain_nr() used somewhere?  If the use is in some future
> series, please mention it explicitly.  I'm just trying to avoid merging
> unused code.

It is used in the arm64 specific patch that I have dropped out of my
pull request. After discussions with Catalin I will add the patch back
into the tree that you've pulled from as he is OK with your tree carrying
the whole package.

I need to ask for some guidance here: for addressing some of your comments
and Rob's I can add more patches in my v11 branch and you can pull them
when you think they are ready. But one of your comments was requesting
splitting a patch into two blocks - one that moves of_pci_range_to_resource()
into drivers/of/address.c and one that fixes it's behaviour - and I don't
know how you would like that handled. Should I revert the original patch
and add the new ones, or should I rebase the whole series into a different
branch that you can pull from?

Best regards,

> Bjorn

| I would like to |
| fix the world,  |
| but they're not |
| giving me the   |
 \ source code!  /

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists