linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 07/13] drivers: Add generic match helper by ACPI

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: <621f33db-d7d8-380e-fe50-effb27523068@arm.com>
Date:   Wed, 12 Jun 2019 10:43:38 +0100
From:   Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
To:     rafael@...nel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        lenb@...nel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, broonie@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/13] drivers: Add generic match helper by ACPI_COMPANION
 device

Hi Rafael,

On 06/06/2019 10:57, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 11:28 AM Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 06/06/2019 10:17, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 5:14 PM Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Add a generic helper to match a device by the acpi device.
>>>
>>> "by its ACPI companion device object", please.
>>
>> Sure.
>>
>>>
>>> Also, it would be good to combine this patch with the patch(es) that
>>> cause device_match_acpi_dev() to be actually used.
>>>
>>> Helpers without any users are arguably not useful.
>>
>> Sure, the helpers will be part of the part2 of the whole series,
>> which will actually have the individual subsystems consuming the
>> new helpers. For your reference, it is available here :
>>
>> http://linux-arm.org/git?p=linux-skp.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/driver-cleanup/v2
>>
>> e.g:
>> http://linux-arm.org/git?p=linux-skp.git;a=commit;h=59534e843e2f214f1f29659993f6e423bef16b28
>>
>> I could simply pull those patches into this part, if you prefer that.
> 
> Not really.
> 
> I'd rather do it the other way around: push the introduction of the
> helpers to part 2.

Sure, I will do that.

> 
>> However, that would be true for the other patches in the part2.
>> I am open to suggestions, on how to split the series.
> 
> You can introduce each helper along with its users in one patch.
> 
> This way the total number of patches will be reduced and they will be
> easier to review IMO.
> 

Wouldn't it make the merging complicated ? I am still not clear how we plan
to merge the part 2 ?

Cheers
Suzuki