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: <20180925100046.GD7097@ulmo>
Date:   Tue, 25 Sep 2018 12:00:46 +0200
From:   Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
To:     Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...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 Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 09:39:43PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> 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..

It's actually a very common argument and I've seen patches in the past
that add includes just for the purpose of making sure the right
definitions get pulled in. This happens quite frequently as a preamble
to some major rework of some header files that would otherwise cause a
lot of breakage.

So I think it's best to be proactive about this and make sure we
explicitly pull in all the necessary headers in the first place,
irrespective of whether or not they may already get pulled in indirectly
by some other headers.

Thierry

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)