linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] gadget: Introduce the usb charger framework

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: <87vb43goag.fsf@intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 31 Mar 2016 09:21:59 +0300
From:	Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:	Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...aro.org>, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
	sre@...nel.org, dbaryshkov@...il.com, dwmw2@...radead.org,
	peter.chen@...escale.com, stern@...land.harvard.edu,
	r.baldyga@...sung.com, yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@...esas.com,
	lee.jones@...aro.org, ckeepax@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com,
	patches@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
	device-mainlining@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] gadget: Introduce the usb charger framework

Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> writes:
> [ text/plain ]
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 01:09:00PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>> Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...aro.org> writes:
>
>> > +#include <linux/of.h>
>> > +#include <linux/of_device.h>
>> > +#include <linux/of_address.h>
>> > +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
>
>> not very nice to depend on either of or platform_device here. What about
>> PCI-based devices ?
>
> The header inclusion shouldn't be conditional though.  But looking at
> the patch I can't immediately see any use of these in the code anyway.

fair enough, seems like removal is the way.

>> > +static DEVICE_ATTR_RW(sdp_limit);
>
>> why RW ? Who's going to use these ? Also, you're not documenting this
>> new sysfs file.
>
> If they end up not writeable should we just remove them entirely since
> they should just be the spec values?

if they are really just spec values, why would even let them be modified
to start with ? ;-)

But yeah, seems like this is not interesting to userland.

-- 
balbi

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (819 bytes)