linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] eeprom: use devres for nvmem providers

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 10 Sep 2018 10:08:06 +0200
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To:     Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        "Gustavo A . R . Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
        Devang Panchal <devang.panchal@...tnautics.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] eeprom: use devres for nvmem providers

2018-09-10 9:59 GMT+02:00 Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>:
>
>
> On 10/09/18 08:54, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>
>> 2018-09-10 9:50 GMT+02:00 Srinivas Kandagatla
>> <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/09/18 08:44, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
>>>>
>>>> While working on the nvmem framework recently I noticed that there are
>>>> many providers that don't use the devm variant of nvmem_register().
>>>> This series contains relevant updates for eeprom drivers.
>>>>
>>>> Bartosz Golaszewski (2):
>>>>     eeprom: eeprom_93xx46: use resource management
>>>>     eeprom: at25: use devm_nvmem_register()
>>>>
>>>>    drivers/misc/eeprom/at25.c          | 3 +--
>>>>    drivers/misc/eeprom/eeprom_93xx46.c | 7 ++-----
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Can you please consider consolidating the devm related changes in a
>>> single
>>> series, to easy the review!
>>>
>>>
>>>>    2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> Are you referring to the devm part of the bigger nvmem series? If so:
>> no, because the nvmem patches are required by the later patches in
>
> Yes, am referring to that series.
> I dont see any reason why lpc and sunxi changes should not be in this
> series? Or there is no implicit reasoning or change log that suggests that
> these have to be part of that series!
>
>

Patch ("nvmem: change the signature of nvmem_unregister()") depends on
those three patches in the other series. We need to change them first
because they were still checking the return value of
nvmem_unregister(). And this patch results from the earlier kref
patch. I think that although this nvmem series is pretty big, it
contains mostly related changes and it will be hard to submit them
separately.

Bart


> --srini
>
>
>> that series. These two patches are independent and should probably go
>> through Greg's tree directly.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Bartosz Golaszewski
>>
>