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
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 2 Nov 2017 11:44:07 +0100
From:   Greg KH <>
To:     Mark Brown <>
Cc:     Laura Abbott <>,
        Benjamin Gaignard <>,,,,,,,,
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...


greg k-h

Powered by blists - more mailing lists