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 19:23:01 +0100
From:   Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>,
        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, 22 May 2017, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

> 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.

New code looks cleaner and appears to use an already defined API.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog