linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 2/4] power: reset: add reboot mode driver

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: <5768DBCB.4090903@rock-chips.com>
Date:	Tue, 21 Jun 2016 14:16:43 +0800
From:	Andy Yan <andy.yan@...k-chips.com>
To:	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>
Cc:	robh+dt@...nel.org, heiko@...ech.de, john.stultz@...aro.org,
	arnd@...db.de, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com, dbaryshkov@...il.com,
	sre@...nel.org, matthias.bgg@...il.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	mbrugger@...e.com, lorenzo.pieralisi@....com,
	moritz.fischer@...us.com, richard@....at
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 2/4] power: reset: add reboot mode driver

Hi Paul:

On 2016年06月20日 22:40, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> [Re: [PATCH v9 2/4] power: reset: add reboot mode driver] On 20/06/2016 (Mon 14:31) Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>
>> On 06/20/2016 10:28 AM, Andy Yan wrote:
>>> Hi Krzysztof:
>>>
>>> On 2016年06月20日 16:09, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 06/20/2016 08:38 AM, Andy Yan wrote:
> [...]
>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +config SYSCON_REBOOT_MODE
>>>>> +    bool "Generic SYSCON regmap reboot mode driver"
>>>> Why not tristate?
>>>     I see many reset drivers in this directories  use bool, so I follow
>>> them.
> Andy - understood, but mistakes done in the past do not justify
> repeating them again in the present.  OK, this is not strictly a mistake
> in that it causes an error, but it isn't an ideal approach.
>
>> +Cc Paul,
>>
>> I don't mind that although I don't see any particular objections for
>> making it module-capable. In the same time I just reminded myself about
>> Paul Gortmaker's long effort (like [1] [2]) about removing module
>> capability from non-modular drivers.
> Thanks -- it is nice to see that people are starting to add this to
> their review checklist ; early on they were getting added faster than I
> could remove them.  :-(   But I think we are making ground now.
>
> For this case, I don't have any bias for it being built-in vs. being
> modular, so long as the code is actually consistent with the Kconfig.
>
> For existing bool settings I just remove the modular references, since I
> can't be extending the functionality to include a modular usage when I
> can't test it or even be sure if a module has a sensible use case.
>
> Paul.
> --

   I will remove the module related stuff in the next version.
>> Following his rationale, I think either this should be a tristate or the
>> module stuff should be removed.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Krzysztof
>>
>> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/2/21/180
>> [2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/6/13/682
>>
>>
>
>