linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] simplefb: Add regulator handling 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]

Message-ID: <20151018195719.GC14956@sirena.org.uk>
Date:	Sun, 18 Oct 2015 20:57:19 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
Cc:	Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
	Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
	Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>,
	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>,
	Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
	linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] simplefb: Add regulator handling support

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 01:31:52PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:

> I like your idea in your other mail where you suggest to actually
> use foo-supply and bar-supply names in the simplefb node, and then have
> some code simple iterate over all the properties and check for *-supply
> properties, so that the proper, schematic matching names can be used.

> But surely if we go this way having a helper for this so that others
> can re-use that likely not entirely trivial code is a good idea ?

Yeah.  It's trying to come up with a way to do this that is easy to
avoid abuse that's tricky.

> One user which comes to mind immediately here is the generic mmc-pwrseq
> driver.

> I agree that we need to be careful to not use a helper like this too
> much, but I do believe it will make sense to have it in some rare cases.
> We can put a big warning in both the header declaring it and above
> the implementation to use it scarcely.

I'd rather have something that was visible in the code, not everyone
reads the documentation especially not subsystem maintainers reviewing
drivers that use APIs they're not familiar with.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)