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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 11:44:07 +0100 From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> Cc: Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>, Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@...aro.org>, sumit.semwal@...aro.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 07:11:53PM +0000, 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. Ugh, I hate that. What's wrong with using a "virtual" device instead? I can create a "virtual" bus for things like this if they really want a "simple" bus, abusing platform for this is the major reason I hate the platform bus code... thanks, greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists