linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] scsi: ufs: Remove select of phy-qcom-ufs from ufs-qcom

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: <CAE=gft7OhomkDT7pMBbRRgKK89CVhmigbebgqiDEqTZtjeXhcg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 14 Jan 2019 10:41:43 -0800
From:   Evan Green <evgreen@...omium.org>
To:     Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc:     "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Andy Gross <andy.gross@...aro.org>, masneyb@...tation.org,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Vinayak Holikatti <vinholikatti@...il.com>,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: ufs: Remove select of phy-qcom-ufs from ufs-qcom

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 9:08 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 7:37 PM Martin K. Petersen
> <martin.petersen@...cle.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Evan,
> >
> > > CONFIG_SCSI_UFS_QCOM selects CONFIG_PHY_QCOM_UFS, assuming that
> > > this was the only possible PHY driver Qualcomm's UFS controller
> > > would use. But in SDM845, the UFS driver is bundled into phy-qcom-qmp,
> > > and phy-qcom-ufs is unused.
> > >
> > > Remove the select, since for SDM845 it adds useless drivers to the
> > > build.
> >
> > Applied to 5.1/scsi-queue.
>
> Should this be accompanied by a change to arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
> that sets 'CONFIG_PHY_QCOM_UFS=m'?  I don't personally have any
> non-SDM845 devices to test on, but I'm sorta assuming they will all
> break without the defconfig update?

Right, thanks for pointing that out. I'll send out another patch to
tweak the defconfig.
-Evan