linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] spi: of: allow instantiating slaves without a 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 30 Jul 2016 19:45:10 +0200
From:	Michal Suchanek <hramrach@...il.com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:	linux-spi <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] spi: of: allow instantiating slaves without a driver

On 19 July 2016 at 12:52, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 10:31:54AM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>> On 19 July 2016 at 01:02, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 12:35:41AM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>
>> >> SPI slave devices are not created when looking up driver for the slave
>> >> fails. Create a device anyway so it can be used with spidev.
>
>> > Nothing has change since you last sent this patch which converts
>> > of_modailias_node() into something which looks up a driver so the
>> > patch description still fails to describe what the patch is doing.
>
>> I have split the other part of the patch. Regarding the commit message
>> if you have suggestion for better wording please do share it.
>
> As covered in SubmittingPatches your commit message should describe what
> the change does and what the intended effect is.  If we were looking for
> a device driver the code would be looking up a struct device_driver or
> some other struct that contains one.
>
>> From my point of view the conceptual change described in the commit message
>> is that whenever SPI slave node is encountered in devicetree you get either
>> a device with active driver or a device with no driver whereas
>> previously you either
>> got a device with active driver or no device. So yes, it's about
>
> This is not the case, it is perfectly possible to have a device with no
> driver bound to it otherwise it would not be possible to use loadable
> modules for drivers.

Ok, I missed this part. That makes the commit message indeed broken.

Thanks

Michal