linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 4/5] powerpc/fsl: move mpc85xx.h to include/linux/fsl

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: <146909676646.16700.8383344640490662952@concordia>
Date:	Thu, 21 Jul 2016 20:26:06 +1000
From:	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To:	Scott Wood <oss@...error.net>, "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Yangbo Lu" <yangbo.lu@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 4/5] powerpc/fsl: move mpc85xx.h to include/linux/fsl

Quoting Scott Wood (2016-07-21 04:31:48)
> On Wed, 2016-07-20 at 13:24 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 9:50:21 PM CEST Scott Wood wrote:
> > > 
> > > From: yangbo lu <yangbo.lu@....com>
> > > 
> > > Move mpc85xx.h to include/linux/fsl and rename it to svr.h as a common
> > > header file.  This SVR numberspace is used on some ARM chips as well as
> > > PPC, and even to check for a PPC SVR multi-arch drivers would otherwise
> > > need to ifdef the header inclusion and all references to the SVR symbols.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Yangbo Lu <yangbo.lu@....com>
> > > Acked-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
> > > Acked-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
> > > Acked-by: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>
> > > [scottwood: update description]
> > > Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <oss@...error.net>
> > > 
> > As discussed before, please don't introduce yet another vendor specific
> > way to match a SoC ID from a device driver.
> > 
> > I've posted a patch for an extension to the soc_device infrastructure
> > to allow comparing the running SoC to a table of devices, use that
> > instead.
> 
> As I asked before, in which relevant maintainership capacity are you NACKing
> this?

I'll nack the powerpc part until you guys can agree.

cheers