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]

Date:   Fri, 9 Dec 2016 10:03:03 -0600
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Cc:     Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.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 Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 4:25 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com> wrote:
>
>
> 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.

I looked at this again and the users. They are all informational, so
I'm not worried if a compatible string could be returned with this
change. The function returns the best name for the machine and having
consistency is a good thing.

I was considering not reverting (as I'd not yet gotten around to it),
but I'm still going to revert for the naming.

>>
>>> 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

I would suggest just of_get_machine_name().

You might also add a fallback to return "unknown", and drop some of
the custom strings. I don't think anyone should care about the actual
string. However, it's an error to have a DT with no model or top level
compatible, so maybe a WARN.

Rob