linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] extcon: Intel Cherry Trail Whiskey Cove PMIC and external charger tweaks

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 15 Feb 2019 10:33:41 +0100
From:   Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Yauhen Kharuzhy <jekhor@...il.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] extcon: Intel Cherry Trail Whiskey Cove PMIC and
 external charger tweaks

Hi,

On 15-02-19 10:29, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 10:31 AM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com> wrote:
>> On 14-02-19 15:15, Yauhen Kharuzhy wrote:
> 
>> I would do something similar with the fuel-gauge in
>> drivers/platform/x86/intel_cht_int33fe.c, one option would
>> be to simply count the number of resources in the ACPI
>> resource table for the INT33FE device, versions with
>> the Type-C port have 7 resources, where as your INT33FE
>> device has only 3.
>>
>> I'm even thinking that it might be best to rename
>> intel_cht_int33fe.c to intel_cht_int33fe_typec.c and add
>> a check for the resource table having 7 entries there, then
>> you can make a intel_cht_int33fe_micro_usb.c copy and strip
>> that mostly empty. Both would bind to the same "INT33FE"
>> id and they would both silently bail with -ENODEV if the
>> resource-count (or the PTYP value) don't match.
>>
>> The reason I'm thinking of having 2 drivers is because
>> the current intel_cht_int33fe.c is quite special / ugly and
>> already has enough ifs.
>>
>> If you do a stand-alone intel_cht_int33fe_micro_usb.c that can
>> hopefully be much simpler.
>>
>> Andy what is your take on having separate intel_cht_int33fe_typec.c
>> and intel_cht_int33fe_micro_usb.c drivers, both binding to
>> the "INT33FE" ACPI-ID (with its totally !@...#-ed up "API") ?
> 
> Depends on how code would look better,

Well the existing drivers/platform/x86/intel_cht_int33fe.c file,
which already is full of kludges would not get even more code-paths
added; and the new file which Yauhen will wrote should be nice and
clean with only 1 straight code-path pretty much.

> though I care about users that
> they will not get additional Kconfig option and broken their
> configurations when new piece of code landed up. So, from mine, as
> user, prospective, we may split driver as we wish, but we should get
> it working as previously for the existing cases.

That is a valid point, I'm not a fan of having even more Kconfig
options either, so we can simply enable/disable both modules through
the same Kconfig option.

Regards,

Hans