linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] devres: Move managed io function declarations into device.h

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: <20180122215056.GA27905@lenoch>
Date:   Mon, 22 Jan 2018 22:50:57 +0100
From:   Ladislav Michl <ladis@...ux-mips.org>
To:     Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc:     Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Wei Yongjun <weiyongjun1@...wei.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] devres: Move managed io function declarations into
 device.h

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 09:49:03AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 10:15:08PM +0100, Ladislav Michl wrote:
> > Moving managed io function declarations into device.h allows
> > removing forward struct device and resource definitions from
> > io(port).h
> 
> In the face of it, what is the issue with forward declarations of device
> and resource structures? device.h is supposed to be about Linux device
> model, not hardware. You would not want all devm_* functions to go into
> device.h (clock, regulator, input, rtc, hwmon, etc, etc devm API),
> right? Why would we want ioport there?

Allright, point taken. Then I would assume devm_ioremap_resource should
be moved from device.h into io.h, to get some consistency, right?
Any other comment (mainly to devm_ioremap_shared_resource) before v2?

Thank you,
	ladis