linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mfd: Fix MACRO for commonly declared MFD cell attributes

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]

Date:	Fri, 11 Mar 2016 14:27:49 +0530
From:	Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>
To:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
CC:	Rhyland Klein <rklein@...dia.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: Fix MACRO for commonly declared MFD cell attributes


On Friday 11 March 2016 02:09 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Mar 2016, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>> On Wednesday 02 March 2016 06:38 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Friday 26 February 2016 10:05 PM, Rhyland Klein wrote:
>>>>> Did you not see warnings like this when you compiled the kernel? Did you
>>>>> find a different approach than what I proposed above to deal with it?
>>>>> I'd like to get this in soon so that when the max77620 drivers are all
>>>>> in and using it, it should be functional.
>>>>>
>>>> I think the following change also crash in runtime:
>>>>
>>>> /***
>>>> commit e60a946f05db2cac857025da6ffb72df48d3be54
>>>> Author: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
>>>>
>>>>      mfd: ab8500: Provide a small example using new MFD cell MACROs
>>>>
>>>> ***/
>>>>
>>>> Should we have something MFD_CELL_RES, MFD_CELL_RES_PDATA,
>>>> MFD_CELL_PDATA, for more common user and not to pass the NULL here.
>>> I'll have a re-think about this.
>> Did you get chance to look into this? Probably, I need to send my
>> mfd series once this get fixed before that series applied.
> Nothing is going to happen until v4.6 now.  It's too late in the
> release cycle to be making such a significant addition, and I'd like
> the change to sit in -next for a good while before going in.
>
OK, so can I use the local initializations in my max77620 patches and 
resend?
Then later we can have cleanups for part only?

This is because if we get in next release then there is some other sub 
modules of the max77620 like clocks, watchdog, power etc which can go on 
their subsystem if common header is available.

Sorry if I am asking too much..