linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 10/10] core: platform: use fwnode_driver_match

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: <CAAObsKByqBtoqYT-xY=dLXs+v9siGMo3EVvBptzuvyK9vdcWiQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 10 Jul 2015 14:53:53 +0200
From:	Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 10/10] core: platform: use fwnode_driver_match_device()

On 2 July 2015 at 01:46, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 04:55:08 PM Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>> Instead of calling both of_driver_match_device() and
>> acpi_driver_match_device(), call fwnode_driver_match_device() which
>> should be able to sort out what firmware describes the device in
>> question.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com>
>
> This one should be part of the other set IMO.

Yeah, I wasn't sure about it myself, but in any case the other series
won't depend on this patch any more because I have moved the match
delay into platform.c. I plan though to resend this with Rob's
comments addressed in the next revision, so they can be taken if they
are seen worthy in themselves.

> Or please just combine the two sets so it is more clear what the new helpers
> are intended for.

Sorry about that, I did the split because Mark suggested so in the
previous review round. I understand that depending on each person's
workflow it may be more convenient in one way or the other, so I'm not
sure I can find a way that fits everybody's preferences.

Thanks,

Tomeu

>> ---
>>
>>  drivers/base/platform.c | 8 ++------
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/base/platform.c b/drivers/base/platform.c
>> index 063f0ab..a7e7757 100644
>> --- a/drivers/base/platform.c
>> +++ b/drivers/base/platform.c
>> @@ -843,12 +843,8 @@ static int platform_match(struct device *dev, struct device_driver *drv)
>>       if (pdev->driver_override)
>>               return !strcmp(pdev->driver_override, drv->name);
>>
>> -     /* Attempt an OF style match first */
>> -     if (of_driver_match_device(dev, drv))
>> -             return 1;
>> -
>> -     /* Then try ACPI style match */
>> -     if (acpi_driver_match_device(dev, drv))
>> +     /* Attempt a firmware match first */
>> +     if (fwnode_driver_match_device(dev, drv))
>>               return 1;
>>
>>       /* Then try to match against the id table */
>>
>
> --
> I speak only for myself.
> Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
> --
> 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/
--
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/