linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <58334A06.103@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 21 Nov 2016 11:24:54 -0800
From:   Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
To:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] of: base: add support to get machine model name

On 11/21/16 08:23, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> 
> 
> On 21/11/16 16:05, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> Hi Sudeep,
>>
>> On 11/18/16 12:22, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>> On 11/18/16 02:41, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 17/11/16 21:00, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>>> On 11/17/16 07:32, 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
>>>>>> to the core OF/DT code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This can be used to remove all the duplicate code snippets doing exactly
>>>>>> same thing later.
>>>>>
>>>>> I find five instances of reading only property "model":
>>>>>
>>>>>   arch/arm/mach-imx/cpu.c
>>>>>   arch/arm/mach-mxs/mach-mxs.c
>>>>>   arch/c6x/kernel/setup.c
>>>>>   arch/mips/cavium-octeon/setup.c
>>>>>   arch/sh/boards/of-generic.c
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ah sorry you were not Cc-ed in 2/2, but that shows all the instances
>>>> that this will be used for.
>>>
>>> I have not seen 2/2.  I do not see it on the devicetree list or on lkml.
>>
>> Can you please re-send patch 2/2?
>>
> 
> Since it is based on -next, I would prefer to wait until next merge
> window to resend. You should be able to check in the link I sent if
> that's OK.

I am missing or misunderstanding something.

I do not know what "the link I sent" means.

For some reason, the devicetree mail list and lmkl mail failed to send
me a copy of patch 2/2.  Or my mail server failed to receive them.  That
is why I asked you to resend the patch. I just now looked in the devicetree
archive and found it there.

So I now can see how you plan to use the new function.

-Frank