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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <195d492b-c674-e096-4f84-d37ca5448db2@arm.com>
Date:   Wed, 23 Nov 2016 10:25:57 +0000
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc:     Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] of: base: add support to get machine model name



On 22/11/16 21:35, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com> wrote:

[...]

>>
>> This patch adds a function that leads to conflating the "model" property
>> and the "compatible" property. This leads to opaque, confusing and unclear
>> code where ever it is used.   I think it is not good for the device tree
>> framework to contribute to writing unclear code.
>>
>> Further, only two of the proposed users of this new function appear to
>> be proper usage.  I do not think that the small amount of reduced lines
>> of code is a good trade off for the reduced code clarity and for the
>> potential for future mis-use of this function.
>>
>> Can I convince you to revert this patch?
>
> Yes, I will revert.
>
>> If not, will you accept a patch to change the function name to more
>> clearly indicate what it does?  (One possible name would be
>> of_model_or_1st_compatible().)
>
> I took it as there's already the FDT equivalent function.

Yes it was mainly for non of_flat_* replacement for
of_flat_dt_get_machine_name

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep