linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v1 1/3] mfd: Add new mfd device TPS68470

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, 12 Jun 2017 09:20:06 +0000
From:   "Mani, Rajmohan" <rajmohan.mani@...el.com>
To:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
CC:     Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@....fi>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v1 1/3] mfd: Add new mfd device TPS68470

Hi Lee,

> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] mfd: Add new mfd device TPS68470
> 
> On Fri, 09 Jun 2017, Mani, Rajmohan wrote:
> 
> > Hi Andy,
> >
> > > On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 03:59:49PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Rajmohan Mani
> > > <rajmohan.mani@...el.com> wrote:
> > > > > The TPS68470 device is an advanced power management unit that
> > > > > powers a Compact Camera Module (CCM), generates clocks for image
> > > > > sensors, drives a dual LED for Flash and incorporates two LED
> > > > > drivers for general purpose indicators.
> > > > >
> > > > > This patch adds support for TPS68470 mfd device.
> > > >
> > > > I dunno why you decide to send this out now, see my comments below.
> > > >
> > > > > +static int tps68470_chip_init(struct tps68470 *tps) {
> > > > > +       unsigned int version;
> > > > > +       int ret;
> > > >
> > > > > +       /* FIXME: configure these dynamically */
> > > >
> > > > So, what prevents you to fix this?
> > >
> > > Nothing I suppose. They're however not needed right now and can be
> > > implemented later on if they're ever needed.
> > >
> >
> > Ack
> 
> What does this mean?  Is the plan to fix it or not?  I don't want FIXMEs in the
> code that a) can be fixed right away or b) might never be fixed.
> 

I meant that this can be implemented later on, if there's a need.
I will look into this and see how this can be fixed.

Thanks
Raj