linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] mux: mux-intel-usb: Add Intel USB Multiplexer driver

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:   Wed, 31 May 2017 17:30:42 +0200
From:   Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
To:     Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     "Krogerus, Heikki" <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy Natarajan <sathyaosid@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] mux: mux-intel-usb: Add Intel USB Multiplexer
 driver

On 2017-05-31 16:18, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 31-05-17 15:05, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> On 2017-05-31 14:21, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>> actually this is the first time I hear about a mux framework
>>> at all. Is there a git tree with the patches for this somewhere ?
>>
>> https://gitlab.com/peda-linux/mux.git in the "mux" branch.
>>
>> Series posted here:
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/5/14/160
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> I see that mux_control_get() currently relies on devicetree describing
> the mux, that is not going to work on non devicetree platforms like
> x86 where the relation typically is not described ad all (*) ?

Yes, I'm aware of this. I wanted to keep things simple. Also, see
my reply on the other branch of this discussion.

https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/5/31/58

> Typically there would be a global list of mux_controls maintained
> by mux_[de]register and then mux_control_get() would walk this list
> until it finds a matching name. The names to register would then be
> passed in by platform data/code when registering and likewise the
> consumer would be passed a unique name to pass into mux_control_get()
> through platform data / code, would that work for you ?
> 
> Note one option would be to set the names to use when registering
> a mux chip through device_properties, this is what the power-supply
> subsys is currently doing more or less.

I had this lose plan to match by the struct device name, but if that
is not working the above seems fine too...

Cheers,
peda