linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] lib/vsprintf: Add %pfw conversion specifier for printing fwnode names

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: <20190326140905.xmdipix35a5rdmiy@paasikivi.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Mar 2019 16:09:05 +0200
From:   Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        rafael@...nel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, robh@...nel.org,
        Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] lib/vsprintf: Add %pfw conversion specifier for
 printing fwnode names

Hi Andy,

On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 03:55:57PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 03:39:47PM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 03:13:53PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 08:17:46PM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> 
> > > The patch series by Petr I mentioned takes care about OF case. But it doesn't
> > > have covered yours by obvious reasons.
> > 
> > Do you happen to have a pointer to it?
> 
> Petr, can you share what is the state of affairs with that series?
> 
> > The behaviour on others is different indeed, you're generally printing a
> > single item at a time. The question rather is, whether we want to be
> > compatible with %pOF going forward or not. I'd prefer that, so using the
> > fwnode API would be easier.
> 
> I would prefer to mimic %pOF and actually to deprecate it in favour of %pfw.
> But it's just mine opinion. I'm skeptical about getting support on it.

IMHO code that only deals with OF specifically is better to continue to use
%pOF. You'd have of_fwnode_handle() in places where you just had the name
of the node previously.

What could be done though is to unify the implementations; that's something
which the set does a little of already.

Cc Rob, too.

-- 
Kind regards,

Sakari Ailus
sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com