linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] device property: Introducing software nodes

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:   Tue, 16 Oct 2018 11:40:50 +0300
From:   Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] device property: Introducing software nodes

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 09:36:33AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 9:35 AM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 1:39 PM Heikki Krogerus
> > <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > To continue the discussion started by Dmitry [1], this is my proposal
> > > that I mentioned in my last mail. In short, the idea is that instead
> > > of trying to extend the support for the currently used struct
> > > property_set, I'm proposing that we introduce a completely new,
> > > independent type of fwnode, and replace the struct property_set with
> > > it. I'm calling the type "software node" here.
> >
> > I'm a big fan of this approach.
> > Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
> > for all patches.
> >
> > I don't know who can finally review and merge this though,
> > I guess Rafael?
> 
> Yes, that would be me. :-)
> 
> I no one speaks up against them, I'll pick them up.

Let me send a final version of these.

I need to add one more patch to the series where I remove an extra
device_remove_properties() call from platform_device_del().

It's unnecessary in any case as device_del() calls
device_remove_properties() for every device, but as the properties are
removed there before the device is removed, we're unable to deduct
the final ref count in the "remove" platform notification since our
node is no longer bind to the device.


Thanks,

-- 
heikki