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: <27006aab-91c4-f468-6fd5-00220e045c6a@arm.com>
Date:   Wed, 23 Nov 2016 10:23:21 +0000
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.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 22/11/16 18:44, Frank Rowand wrote:
> Hi Rob,

[...]

>
> 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.
>

I agree, the main intention of this patch initially was to have a non
flat_* version of of_flat_dt_get_machine_name

> 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.
>

OK, most of the place I found it used for logging/informational purpose
and hence I thought it could replace in places where even compatible is
used. If that's wrong or leads to misuse of this API, then fine we
should not have one.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep