linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 3/8] pinctrl: cygnus: add initial IOMUX driver support

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:	Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:00:10 -0700
From:	Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>
To:	Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
CC:	Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	"Grant Likely" <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Christian Daudt <bcm@...thebug.org>,
	Matt Porter <mporter@...aro.org>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	"Scott Branden" <sbranden@...adcom.com>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...gle.com>,
	"Anatol Pomazau" <anatol@...gle.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
	bcm-kernel-feedback-list <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/8] pinctrl: cygnus: add initial IOMUX driver support



On 3/9/2015 11:40 AM, Paul Bolle wrote:
> Linus Walleij schreef op ma 09-03-2015 om 17:28 [+0100]:
>> I think you're right. Or I fear you're right.
>>
>> But this problem is present in so many drivers that a generic
>> fixup needs to be done with a script and across an entire subsystem
>> at once,
> 
> Why don't we start with checking for similar cases during review, like
> I'm now doing for only a week or two?
> 
>>  and besides I'm not sure of these macros disturb so much.
> 
> I think they're confusing at best. Ie, when reading the code and the
> corresponding Kconfig file one has to wonder: should the Kconfig symbol
> actually be tristate or should it stay bool but did someone forget to
> delete the module-specific code?
> 
>> They are documentation in a sense, albeit a kind of documentation
>> we used before we had git to record the actual authors of the
>> code.
> 
> They're useful, mostly, for module utilities. Outside that scope they
> add information that thousands of files (that can also only be built-in
> but do not have these macros) do not have and, apparently, do not need.

I think it depends on how you see it. Based on this logic, then one can
also argue comments in the code will be pre-processed away and are not
needed. They at least serve the same documentation purpose in a way. So
far I haven't seen other people complaining that having these module
based macros in the driver are confusing when the Kconfig has a bool.

Ray

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> Paul Bolle
> 
--
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/