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  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, 26 Mar 2019 16:50:20 +0100
From:   Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rafael@...nel.org,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] lib/vsprintf: Add %pfw conversion specifier for
 printing fwnode names

On Tue 2019-03-26 16:30:21, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 04:12:43PM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 04:06:33PM +0200, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 03:13:53PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 
> > > > > > Do we support swnode here?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Good question. The swnodes have no hierarchy at the moment (they're only
> > > > > created for a struct device as a parent) and they do not have human-readable
> > > > > names. So I'd say it's not relevant right now. Should these two change,
> > > > > support for swnode could (and should) be added later on.
> > > > 
> > > > Heikki, what do you think about this?
> > > 
> > > Well, the swnodes do have hierarchy. That was kind of the whole point
> > > of introducing them. They now can also be named using "name" property.
> > > See commit 344798206f171c5abea7ab1f9762fa526d7f539d.
> > 
> > Right; I saw the function after initially replying to Andy but I missed
> > where the node name came from. :-) Now I know...
> > 
> > I can add support for swnode, too, if you like.
> 
> Definitely!

It might really make sense to obsolete %pOF and handle all three
(OF, ACPI, Software) nodes using the same %pfw modifiers.

If I get it correctly, we could distinguish them by
fwnode->ops, see is_of_node(), is_acpi_static_node(),
is_software_node().

Best Regards,
Petr

Powered by blists - more mailing lists