linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] serial: amba-pl011: add ACPI support to AMBA probe

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: <568BEDEC.5010101@codeaurora.org>
Date:	Tue, 5 Jan 2016 10:23:08 -0600
From:	Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>
To:	G Gregory <graeme.gregory@...aro.org>
Cc:	Aleksey Makarov <aleksey.makarov@...aro.org>,
	"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@...ia.com>,
	Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@...aro.org>,
	linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] serial: amba-pl011: add ACPI support to AMBA probe

G Gregory wrote:
>> >I'm confused by this patch.  We already have code like this in
>> >tty-next, in the form of sbsa_uart_probe():
>> >
>> >https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/tty/+/tty-next/drivers/tty/serial/amba-pl011.c#2553
>> >
> Because Russell expressed unhappiness at that code existing. So this
> is an alternative method to do same thing with ACPI.

FYI, this patch doesn't apply on tty-next as-is, so it would need to be 
updated anyway.  Then again, considering the latest drama with that 
driver, who knows what it will look like?

> If the "arm,sbsa-uart" id was added to drivers/of/platform.c as an
> AMBA id then the same could be done for DT as well.
>
> Ultimately this patch is optional depending on maintainers opinion!

So with this patch, what is the difference between sbsa_uart_probe and 
pl011_probe?  Shouldn't the patch also remove sbsa_uart_probe?
--
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/