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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 13:24:59 +0200 From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> To: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com> Cc: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] Revert "extcon: usb-gpio: add support for ACPI gpio interface" On Fri, 2017-03-24 at 20:03 +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote: > On 2017년 03월 22일 22:09, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Wed, 2017-03-22 at 10:14 +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote: > > > On 2017년 03월 22일 03:37, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > The commit 942c7924a51e introduced a check for ACPI handle for > > > > the > > > > device that never appears on any ACPI-enabled platform so far. > > > > It > > > > seems > > > > a confusion with extcon-intel-int3496 which does support ACPI- > > > > enabled > > > > platforms. > > > > > > Only for the reason that there is no any usecase until now, > > > and remove the confusion between extcon-usb-gpio and extcon-intel- > > > int3496. > > > Should we revert it? > > > > > > > > > > I think that both extcon-usb-gpio and extcon-intel-int3496 > > > driver are not same operation perfectly. Also, the filename > > > of extcon-intel-int3496 has specific name. Instead, extcon-usb- > > > gpio.c > > > is more common device driver. > > > > > > Can the extcon-intel-int3496.c support the everything on acpi > > > side? > > > > For my understanding we have the only driver for now for USB mux in > > the > > kernel for ACPI-enabled platforms. > > > > Besides confusion, it makes harder to fix a real bugs in at least > > GPIO > > ACPI library since we need to amend any user of it first. While > > confusion is here, I can't do anything to not possible break the > > functionality of the driver in a real use case if any (I doubt there > > is > > any in this particular case). > > > > So, my opinion here is "yes, we should revert it until we have a > > confirmation that there is a product which is using this among with > > ACPI" (which I doubt ever exists). > > Because you told me there was not any use case of extcon-usb-gpioc.c > on acpi side. But, I think that it is not enough as the reason. > > Because I already mentioned, > 1. > "The both extcon-usb-gpio and extcon-intel-int3496 driver > are not same operation perfectly." It two driver are same operation > and there is no use case on acpi side, I may agree your suggestion. > But, in this case, they are different between two drivers. > > 2. > Also, extcon-intel-int3496 has the specific name 'int3496'. > I think that it only depends on the specific device driver on acpi > side. > I don't think it cover all of use case on acpi side. Just one question: is there *real* existing device where ACPI table contains something related to extcon-usb-gpio? I'm pretty sure the answer is no. Moreover, Lu pointed me out to the series which tried to update the driver in question to support int3496. Though it comes as a separate driver, thus that series was abandoned IIUC. I really don't care if some dead confusing code will be left in some poor driver, at the end it's not my call. P.S. We already spent enough time making a mountain out of a molehill. I rest my case. -- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> Intel Finland Oy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists