linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Fix platform data in leds-pca955x.c

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]

Date:   Wed, 4 Jul 2018 23:17:35 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>
Cc:     clg@...d.org, Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@...il.com>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Andrew Jeffery <andrew@...id.au>,
        Linux LED Subsystem <linux-leds@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix platform data in leds-pca955x.c

On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 9:09 PM, Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net> wrote:
> On 07/04/2018 12:04 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 8:00 PM, Andy Shevchenko
>> <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 3:46 AM, Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net> wrote:
>>
>>> For now, you can switch to unified device properties API (basically
>>> un-ifdef pca955x_pdata_of_init() and replacing of_* by device_* or
>>> fwnode_* compatible calls) and providing a static table of built-in
>>> device properties in the platform code in question.
>>> (see include/linux/property.h, for example users of
>>> PROPERTY_ENTRY_U*() macros, like arch/arm/mach-pxa/raumfeld.c)
>>
>> Taking into consideration that device is enumerated by i2c core, which
>> is being aware of device properties (1), better example might be
>> drivers/platform/x86/intel_cht_int33fe.c
>
> This file doesn't include the word "LED".

Should it?
You seems missed a point completely.

>
>   $ grep -i led drivers/platform/x86/intel_cht_int33fe.c
>   $
>
> Examining it... this is an ACPI driver, Intel's Not-Invented-Here proprietary
> device tree.

Huh?!

> So I should convert an sh7760 board to ACPI?

NO! (Of cource if you have ACPI ID and meaning of that device on ACPI
enabled platform, then it's your choice)

>  How would this fix the problem
> where the driver's probe function expects a structure as input that is locally
> defined, instead of the generic structure from linux/leds.h it used to accept?

You missed a point.

> If we feed the probe function NULL platform data _and_ don't have device tree
> enabled, doesn't it error out?

No.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko