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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:59:25 +0200
From:	Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
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

Hi,

On 18-10-15 21:57, Mark Brown wrote:
> 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.

I'm afraid there is not really a good way to do this though, so a big fat
warning in the header declaring the function is really the bets we can
do IMHO.

Regards,

Hans
--
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/