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: <75c8c6ac-2f56-f477-8fcd-794504499111@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 31 Oct 2017 12:45:25 -0700
From:   Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
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 10/31/2017 12:11 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> 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.
> 

Thanks for the pointer.