linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 06/10] spi: add support for ACPI reconfigure notifications

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: <CAE1zotL7X+di4rHecRW_G-45wUPbbNb9jvn3C_zjD4XttZ4v3w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 5 Apr 2016 22:16:16 +0300
From:	Octavian Purdila <octavian.purdila@...el.com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
	Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
	Joel Becker <jlbec@...lplan.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-i2c <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Irina Tirdea <irina.tirdea@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 06/10] spi: add support for ACPI reconfigure notifications

On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 9:32 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 02:49:13PM +0300, Octavian Purdila wrote:
>
>> If we really want to have a single path for ACPI enumeration we could
>> do that by using an ACPI SPI bridge driver or scan handlers after
>> extending the matching mechanisms. But we would still need to modify
>> the SPI subsystem and I don't think its worth it just to save a call
>> to acpi_register_spi_devices() from spi_register_master().
>
> It's not specifically for SPI, it's the fact that you're asking every
> single bus type which might be described in ACPI to handle both hotplug
> and coldplug paths separately.  Given that the code that's being added
> just seems like trivial boilerplate it seems like we're doing this
> wrong, we should be factoring this out so there's nothing bus types can
> get wrong.
>

AFAICS this is exactly the same case for DT: one code path for
coldplug and one for hotplug.

Which makes me think that it is not possible to have a single path for
both, or maybe its not worth it. Do I miss something obvious?