linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 08/11] ASoC: Intel: atom: Make PCI dependency explicit

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: <CAJZ5v0h3br9+a8x2Vy406hJ-Rp24zs+b-ijxGJx0z7=9msWE7g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 Jan 2019 10:36:43 +0100
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Sinan Kaya <okaya@...nel.org>
Cc:     Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <liam.r.girdwood@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jie Yang <yang.jie@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
        "moderated list:INTEL ASoC DRIVERS" <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 08/11] ASoC: Intel: atom: Make PCI dependency explicit

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 10:34 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 8:56 PM Sinan Kaya <okaya@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Code does unconditional select for IOSF_MBI. IOSF_MBI driver depends on
> > CONFIG_PCI set but this is not specified anywhere.
>
> IMO it would be better to say
>
> "After commit 5d32a66541c46 (PCI/ACPI: Allow ACPI to be built without
> CONFIG_PCI set) dependencies on CONFIG_PCI that previously were
> satisfied implicitly through dependencies on CONFIG_ACPI have to be
> specified directly.  For this reason, add a direct dependency on
> CONFIG_PCI to the IOSF_MBI driver."
>
> If you did that, the reviewers would know upfront what this was about
> and that might save at least one back-and-forth e-mail exchange in
> each case.

But, of course, the changelog doesn't even match the patch contents in
this particular case.  Please fix that.