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]

Date:   Sat, 8 Jul 2017 16:28:10 -0700
From:   "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan" <sathyaosid@...il.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] mux: Add new API to get mux_control ref by device
 name.

Hi Andy,


On 7/8/2017 2:26 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 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.
I dropped the idea of Intel USB MUX driver after my last discussion with 
Hans. He is currently working on a solution for this issue. Once its 
merged, May be I can try improving it handle my use cases.

But I submitted these changes because it can be useful if any one wants 
to use MUX framework for non-dt case.
>