linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 WIP 4/5] i2c-parport: use new parport device model

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: <20150520081651.GA2997@sudip-PC>
Date:	Wed, 20 May 2015 13:46:52 +0530
From:	Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>
To:	Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
Cc:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 WIP 4/5] i2c-parport: use new parport device model

On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 09:57:24AM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Sudip,
> 
> On Wed,  6 May 2015 15:46:16 +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
<snip>
> > +static struct pardev_cb i2c_parport_cb = {
> > +	.flags = PARPORT_FLAG_EXCL,
> > +	.irq_func = i2c_parport_irq,
> > +};
> 
> There's no reason for this variable to be global. It is only needed
> temporarily at attach time if I understand correctly, so it should be
> local to function i2c_parport_attach().
yes, this is only like a placeholder of the function pointers.
will make it local in the patch. (I guess WIP is over)
> 
> > +
<snip>
> > +static int i2c_parport_probe(struct pardevice *par_dev)
> > +{
> > +	if (strcmp(par_dev->name, "i2c-parport"))
> > +		return -ENODEV;
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> 
> I'm wondering, is there any reason why this can't be automated by the
> driver core part of the code? Most drivers will simply compare
> drv->name with par_dev->name, which could be done in function
> parport_probe() when no custom probe function is provided.
yes, it can be done. I will add that in the patch.
> 
> Now I see that you use the existence of the probe callback to decide
> that the driver implements the device driver model. I suppose you could
> use match_port instead, except that for some reason the paride driver
> doesn't implement one. Maybe it should, or maybe you can check of the
> presence of either to decide that this is a device model driver.
as Dan suggested I am checking on devmodel now, instead of the existence
of probe, so what you are suggestiong now can definitely be done with
very small change.
> 
> > +
> >  static struct parport_driver i2c_parport_driver = {
> >  	.name	= "i2c-parport",
> > -	.attach	= i2c_parport_attach,
> > +	.match_port = i2c_parport_attach,
> >  	.detach	= i2c_parport_detach,
> > +	.probe	= i2c_parport_probe,
> >  };
> >  
> >  /* ----- Module loading, unloading and information ------------------------ */
> 
> Tested OK on my ADM1032 evaluation board.
> 
> Tested-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
Thanks again.

regards
sudip
> 
> -- 
> Jean Delvare
> SUSE L3 Support
--
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/