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]
Date:   Fri, 3 May 2019 10:04:39 +0200
From:   Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        openbmc@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>, Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>,
        Andrew Jeffery <andrew@...id.au>,
        Avi Fishman <avifishman70@...il.com>,
        Tomer Maimon <tmaimon77@...il.com>,
        Tali Perry <tali.perry1@...il.com>,
        Patrick Venture <venture@...gle.com>,
        Nancy Yuen <yuenn@...gle.com>,
        Benjamin Fair <benjaminfair@...gle.com>,
        Kamil Debski <kamil@...as.org>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
        Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
        Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] thermal: Introduce
 devm_thermal_of_cooling_device_register

On 01/05/2019 18:48, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 12:58:15PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> thermal_of_cooling_device_register() and thermal_cooling_device_register()
>> are typically called from driver probe functions, and
>> thermal_cooling_device_unregister() is called from remove functions. This
>> makes both a perfect candidate for device managed functions.
>>
>> Introduce devm_thermal_of_cooling_device_register(). This function can
>> also be used to replace thermal_cooling_device_register() by passing a NULL
>> pointer as device node. The new function requires both struct device *
>> and struct device_node * as parameters since the struct device_node *
>> parameter is not always identical to dev->of_node.
>>
>> Don't introduce a device managed remove function since it is not needed
>> at this point.
>>
> 
> Any feedback / thoughts / comments ?

Hi Guenter,

I have comments about your patch but I need some time to double check in
the current code how the 'of' and 'devm' are implemented.


-- 
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

Powered by blists - more mailing lists