linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] of: base: add support to get machine model name

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <d4839046-49f6-b375-fc64-acf64b450540@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 17 Nov 2016 14:16:39 +0000
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Cc:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] of: base: add support to get machine model name



On 17/11/16 14:13, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday, November 17, 2016 2:08:30 PM CET Sudeep Holla wrote:
>> On 17/11/16 13:50, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Thursday, November 17, 2016 11:50:50 AM CET Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>>> Currently platforms/drivers needing to get the machine model name are
>>>> replicating the same snippet of code. In some case, the OF reference
>>>> counting is either missing or incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> This patch adds support to read the machine model name either using
>>>> the "model" or the "compatible" property in the device tree root node.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
>>>
>>> I like the idea. One small comment:
>>>
>>
>> Thanks. I prefer it as single patch but it can't be applied to any tree.
>> Any suggestions on handling this patch to fix the warning in -next ?
>>
> The patch that causes the warning is currently in the mmc tree, and I
> don't think it would be good to have your entire patch in there too.
>
> It's probably best to just fix the warning there now by adding another
> open-coded copy of that function, and then apply your patch on top
> for v4.11.

Sure, that's much simpler to deal with for now.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep