linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] staging: ion: create one device entry per heap

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: <20171031191153.avolosp6n5gb3xao@sirena.co.uk>
Date:   Tue, 31 Oct 2017 19:11:53 +0000
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>
Cc:     Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@...aro.org>,
        sumit.semwal@...aro.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        arve@...roid.com, riandrews@...roid.com, dan.carpenter@...cle.com,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] staging: ion: create one device entry per heap

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 12:03:35PM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote:

> I'm not a fan of the platform bus but I have mixed feelings about
> creating a dedicated bus type. I guess if we really need a bus
> type we can do it later?

There was a discussion a while ago in the context of I2C/SPI MFDs
which concluded that if you need a bus and it's going to be effectively
noop then you should just use the platform bus as anything else will
consist almost entirely of cut'n'paste from the platform bus with some
light sed usage and code duplication is bad.  It's not super lovely as
it's not actually a memory mapped device but it's the best idea we've
got.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)