linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] mux: Add new API to get mux

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]

Message-ID: <CAHp75Ve-x6Vfv039JNzAcONiMw0QFAJSzXua7bcJG8Rxu1b95g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 9 Jul 2017 00:26:06 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>,
        "Krogerus, Heikki" <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...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: Add new API to get mux_control ref by device name.

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 12:12 AM, Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se> wrote:
> On 2017-07-08 00:03, sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com wrote:
>> From: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
>>
>> Currently this driver only provides a single API, mux_control_get() to
>> get mux_control reference based on mux_name, and also this API has tight
>> dependency on device tree node. For devices, that does not use device
>> tree, it makes it difficult to use this API. This patch adds new
>> API to access mux_control reference based on device name, chip index and
>> controller index value.
>
> I assume this is for the Intel USB Multiplexer that you sent a driver for
> a month or so ago? If so, you still have not answered these questions:
>
>    Is any other consumer in the charts at all? Can this existing consumer
>    ever make use of some other mux? If the answer to both those questions
>    are 'no', then I do not see much point in involving the mux subsystem at
>    all. The Broxton USB PHY driver could just as well write to the register
>    all by itself, no?
>
> that I asked in https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/5/31/58
>
> What is the point of that driver?

Without Heikki's blessing, NAK for this activity.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko