linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv7 07/11] i2c: match dt-style device names from sysfs interface

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, 15 Nov 2016 09:48:45 +0000
From:   Kieran Bingham <kieran@...uared.org.uk>
To:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Cc:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>,
        sameo@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv7 07/11] i2c: match dt-style device names from sysfs
 interface



On 14/11/16 22:27, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 12:47:42PM +0000, Kieran Bingham wrote:
>> A user can choose to instantiate a device on an i2c bus using the sysfs
>> interface by providing a string and address to match and communicate
>> with the device on the bus. Presently this string is only matched
>> against the old i2c device id style strings, even in the presence of
>> full device tree compatible strings with vendor prefixes.
>>
>> Providing a vendor-prefixed string to the sysfs interface will not match
>> against the device tree of_match_device() calls as there is no device
>> tree node to parse from the sysfs interface.
>>
>> Convert i2c_of_match_device_strip_vendor() such that it can match both
> 
> The function name here is the old one...
> 
>> vendor prefixed and stripped compatible strings on the sysfs interface.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kieran Bingham <kieran@...gham.xyz>
> 
> ... and in patch 2, the sentence "remove this function if all drivers
> are converted" is obsolete, too, since we need this function always for
> sysfs.
> 
> This make me wonder if we shouldn't squash this patch also in into patch
> 2 (like I suggested for the next one), and create a best-of-all-worlds
> commit message from these three patches?
> 
> Opinions?

That's fine with me - My main reason for keeping them separate during
posting was so that the changes I had made could be seen - but yes - I
think they probably are eligible for squashing.


-- 
Regards

Kieran Bingham