linux-kernel - Re: [RFT 0/4] mfd: regulator: max14577: Remove support for platform data

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-id: <13060664.SiaA6008Pk@amdc3058>
Date:   Tue, 28 Feb 2017 12:34:37 +0100
From:   Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFT 0/4] mfd: regulator: max14577: Remove support for platform
 data


Hi,

On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 09:47:40 AM Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 04:52:36PM +0100, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > On Monday, February 27, 2017 05:32:37 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> 
> > > The driver supports two chipsets: max14577 and max77836. As you noted,
> > > the first one is for Gear 1. The second one is present on Gear2 which
> > > is supported by mainline. Simplifying the driver to support only
> > > max77836 would be a task requiring testing. I think review would be in
> > > such case not enough.
> 
> > I think that this shouldn't be a big problem (if no one
> > else volunteers we can do the testing on Gear2 device).
> 
> OTOH is it really gaining us much to remove the functionality vs the
> effort for testing?  Removing the entire driver is fairly
> straightforward but if it's just some extra device support that's
> sitting there not bothering anyone perhaps it's not really a good use of
> time.

We have to test the device from time to time anyway just
to check that upstream support is still working so it
shouldn't be much extra effort.

Leaving the code as it is for now is also okay for me
(till it starts bothering somebody, i.e. people doing
automatic DT bindings coverage/validity checking).

Best regards,
--
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics