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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 13:09:00 -0700 From: Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@...il.com> To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> Cc: "linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>, Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Chris Healy <cphealy@...il.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/14] pinctrl-sx150x: Rely on of_modalias_node for OF matching On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 5:28 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@...il.com> wrote: > >> None of the OF match table entries contain any compatiblity strings that >> could not be matched against using i2c_device_id table above and >> of_modalias_node. Besides that entries in OF match table do not cary >> proper device variant information which is need by the drive. Those two >> facts combined, IMHO, make a compelling case for removal of that code >> altogether. >> >> Signed-off-by: Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@...il.com> > (...) >> -static const struct of_device_id sx150x_of_match[] = { >> - { .compatible = "semtech,sx1508q" }, >> - { .compatible = "semtech,sx1509q" }, >> - { .compatible = "semtech,sx1506q" }, >> - { .compatible = "semtech,sx1502q" }, >> - {}, >> -}; > > I'm a bit hesitant about this since we should ideally first match on the > compatible string for any device. We have tried to alleviate the situation > in I2C devices but it has been a bit so-so. > Ah, good to know. Let's do it that way then. > It would be best if we make a separate patch after this tjat adds it > back, set the variant data also in the .data of the match and > use of_device_get_match_data(). Do you prefer it as a separate patch, or, instead, should I change this patch of the series to do what you describe? I'd be happy to do either and it seems like it would be a trivial change so it should invalidate any of the testing done by Neil. Thanks, Andrey
Powered by blists - more mailing lists