linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 11/20] memory: tegra: Use of_device_get_match

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: <dcf439a0-249c-ff9f-292d-c807a736672a@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 24 Sep 2018 21:39:43 +0300
From:   Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
To:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
Cc:     Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 11/20] memory: tegra: Use of_device_get_match_data()

On 9/24/18 1:13 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 03:41:44AM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> There is no need to match device with the DT node since it was already
>> matched, use of_device_get_match_data() helper to get the match-data.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/memory/tegra/mc.c | 10 ++--------
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/memory/tegra/mc.c b/drivers/memory/tegra/mc.c
>> index 5454ffe5b2e0..cdc33f93cf7c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/memory/tegra/mc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/memory/tegra/mc.c
>> @@ -11,8 +11,7 @@
>>  #include <linux/interrupt.h>
>>  #include <linux/kernel.h>
>>  #include <linux/module.h>
>> -#include <linux/of.h>
>> -#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> 
> It's better not to remove these two because the code still uses
> functions declared in them. If ever we were going to remove code using
> linux/of_device.h and then remove the linux/of_device.h include, we'd
> break the build and have to reintroduce the includes.

That doesn't sound like a good argument. You're way too picky here ;)

> The same would happen if linux/of_device.h were ever to stop including
> linux/platform_device.h or linux/of.h. That may sound unlikely, but it
> has happened in the past with other includes. It can also happen that
> some restructuring takes place in some headers that is not so obvious
> and then things can still start falling apart miles away.

Restructuring will be somebody else problem. Not sure that we really
should care about it, I think it is unnecessary. But since you're
insisting..