linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mfd: intel_quark_i2c_gpio: Use dmi_system

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:   Mon, 22 May 2017 20:42:14 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
Cc:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sascha Weisenberger <sascha.weisenberger@...mens.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mfd: intel_quark_i2c_gpio: Use dmi_system_id table
 for retrieving frequency

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 8:38 PM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com> wrote:
> On 2017-05-22 19:36, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com> wrote:
>>> On 2017-05-22 19:26, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>>> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2017-05-22 19:20, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2017-05-22 19:12, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com> wrote:

>>>>>> And since there is no difference to the frequency the name is enough.
>>>>>> So, I wouldn't go with this series as is. See above.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope: Just like for the stmmac, we need to include the asset tags to
>>>>> avoid matching variations of the devices which may carry the same board
>>>>> name. While I will try to avoid that this happens, we are better safe
>>>>> than sorry here.
>>>>
>>>> Do we have an issue right now?
>>>> Yes / No
>>>
>>> Andy, we are trying to design a robust upstream driver here, no ad-hoc
>>> BSP that will not survive the hardware anyway.
>>
>> You didn't answer my question...
>>
>> I do not see a good point to solve the issue that might happen in the future.
>>
>
> While I do - that's why your question is misleading.
>
> Then let's leave the decision up to the maintainer.

Lee, just for your convenience I'm repeating myself here:

I do not like this series at all since it tries to solve non-existing
issue in over-engineering way.

If you on opposite side I will be happy to help reviewing it.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko