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:   Wed, 6 Dec 2017 13:15:44 -0600
From:   "Andrew F. Davis" <>
To:     Mark Brown <>
CC:     Liam Girdwood <>,
        Rob Herring <>,
        Mark Rutland <>,
        BenoƮt Cousson <>,
        Tony Lindgren <>,
        <>, <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 09/19] ASoC: tlv320aic31xx: Remove platform data

On 12/06/2017 01:11 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 12:40:45PM -0600, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
>> For some userspace feature sure, but this is kernel code, there is no
>> guarantee for a sable API, in fact some would probably argue even
>> further that there is a guarantee that stuff *will* change and this is a
>> good thing as it kinda serves to punish for those you don't try to upstream.
>> So the helpfulness bar should be zero for changes that break out-of-tree
>> stuff.
> There is no need to actively get in people's way or put up barriers to
> people who do in future decide to upstream things, that doesn't help
> anyone.
>> Even more so this patch isn't a zero gain, the cleaner, better looking,
>> and easier to maintain code *is* the benefit in itself. Plus we gain the
>> ability to set mic-gain voltage with ACPI, something you couldn't do
>> before this patch.
> If this patch adds ACPI support then the patch description was clearly
> not great (I don't think I read the patch itself since the description
> just said that it was removing platform data without giving a reason,
> that's the main review comment here). 

I may not be clear that the ACPI part is new, but the message does say
"and switch to using fwnode(DT/ACPI)"

> If you want to use the device property stuff that's fine but there's no
> need to remove platform data to do that, it's a smaller change.  I find
> it hard to see the platform data as a particularly big blight on the
> code here, looking at the driver it's just going to remove the "pdata."
> from a few variable accesses which isn't exactly transformational.

If keeping platform data is that important to you then I will split the
patch into fwnode addition and pdata removal, you can just not take the
pdata removal if you don't want it.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists