linux-kernel - Re: Why do we need reset_control_get

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]

Date:	Tue, 16 Aug 2016 18:41:09 +0900
From:	Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
	Axel Lin <axel.lin@...ics.com>,
	Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: Why do we need reset_control_get_optional() ?

Hi Arnd,



2016-08-06 0:35 GMT+09:00 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>:

>
> config RESET_FOO
>         bool "FOO reset controller" if COMPILE_TEST && !ARCH_FOO
>         default ARCH_FOO
>
> then I think we get both: you won't be able to turn it off
> but also get the build testing.


This looks good to me, too.
I do not know if we need "&& !ARCH_FOO", though.

When we are compile-testing, we do not care if it works on run-time,
so perhaps it makes sense to allow to enable/disable RESET_FOO
regardless ARCH_FOO.


Philipp also agreed, so I guess the permission for this rework
is granted.
Would you do it?



-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada