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

Message-ID: <56E925DC.6000505@nvidia.com>
Date:	Wed, 16 Mar 2016 14:52:36 +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 Wednesday 16 March 2016 02:12 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2016, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>
>> 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..
> For quick accptance, just submit using the normal un-MACRO'ed
> structure.

Thanks, I had sent V9 version of the MAX77620 which used normal 
un-MACROed version.