linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND][PATCH v2 27/36] drivers: Add a generic helper to match device by fwnode handle

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: <CAJZ5v0jXioEAELmHqMhR0wJQkzLQpp1WA-zuWHdFkSWjiX0kVw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 Apr 2019 16:39:51 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        coresight@...ts.linaro.org,
        Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND][PATCH v2 27/36] drivers: Add a generic helper to match
 device by fwnode handle

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 12:53 PM Suzuki K Poulose
<suzuki.poulose@....com> wrote:
>
> On 04/16/2019 11:48 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 12:39 PM Suzuki K Poulose
> > <suzuki.poulose@....com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Make the device_fwnode_match() a generic helper to match device
> >> by fwnode handle for use with bus_find_device(). This will be
> >> also used by coresight.
> >>
> >> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> >> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
> >> Cc: linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
> >> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> Resending with linux-acpi in Cc, as requested by Rafael.
> >
> > Do any other patches in your series depend on this one?
>
> Yes, I do. But they are in the middle of a big series of changes and
> I don't expect this series to go into 5.2. So, if you plan to pull this
> please go ahead.

I would prefer the new exported function to return bool.  With that
changed, I can apply the patch I think.