linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/21] eeprom: at24: driver refactoring

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: <20180323152603.GA17081@kroah.com>
Date:   Fri, 23 Mar 2018 16:26:03 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        linux-i2c <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/21] eeprom: at24: driver refactoring

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 04:52:19PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 5:21 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote:
> > 2018-03-19 15:43 GMT+01:00 Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>:
> >> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:17 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote:
> >>> This series contains what I hope to be a non-controversial refactoring
> >>> of the at24 eeprom driver.
> >>>
> >>> Most changes revolve around at24_probe() which became quite complicated
> >>> and hard to read.
> >>>
> >>> The only functional changes are: disabling the internal locking
> >>> mechanisms of regmap (since we already take care of that in the driver)
> >>> and removing an if checking if byte_len is a power of 2 (as we do
> >>> support models for which it's not true).
> >>>
> >>> All other patches affect readability and code structure.
> >>>
> >>> Tested with a couple models and different both for device tree and
> >>> platform data modes.
> >>
> >> Is there any available tree with that series applied?
> >> I would test it on Intel Galileo Gen 2 which has ACPI enumerated AT24
> >> EEPROM attached.
> >>
> >
> > Yes, it's in my github tree:
> >
> >     https://github.com/brgl/linux    topic/at24/refactoring
> >
> > Thanks in advance for testing it!
> 
> At least this didn't break AT24 on Intel Galileo Gen 2 board in ACPI mode.
> 
> Tested-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>

All applied except for patch 4.

thanks,

greg k-h