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  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, 14 Jun 2019 18:04:33 +0000
From:   Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
To:     Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>
CC:     Peter Korsgaard <peter.korsgaard@...co.com>,
        Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@...latforms.ru>,
        "linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] i2c-mux-gpio: Unpin the platform-specific GPIOs
 request code

On 2019-06-14 18:31, Serge Semin wrote:
> Hello Peter,
> 
> On Sun, Jun 09, 2019 at 09:34:54PM +0000, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> On 2019-04-26 01:20, Serge Semin wrote:
>>> The GPIOs request loop can be safely moved to a separate function.
>>> First of all it shall improve the code readability. Secondly the
>>> initialization loop at this point is used for both of- and
>>> platform_data-based initialization paths, but it will be changed in
>>> the next patch, so by isolating the code we'll simplify the future
>>> work.
>>
>> This patch is just preparatory for patch 3/3, as I see it. And since
>> I'm not really fond of the end result after patch 3/3, I'm going to
>> sum up my issues here, instead of trying do it piecemeal in the two
>> patches.
>>
>> Linus and Jean, for your convenience, link to this patch series [1].
>>
>> While I agree with the goal (to use the more flexible gpiod functions
>> to get at the gpio descriptors), the cost is too high when the init
>> code for platform and OF is basically completely separated. I much
>> prefer the approach taken by Linus [2], which instead converts the
>> platform interface and its single user to use gpio descriptors instead
>> of the legacy gpio interface. The i2c-mux-gpio code then has the
>> potential to take a unified approach to the given gpio descriptors,
>> wherever they are originating from, which is much nicer than the
>> code-fork in this series.
>>
>> I also think it is pretty pointless to first split the code into
>> platform and OF paths, just so that the next patch (from Linus) can
>> unify the two paths again. I'd like to skip the intermediate step.
>>
>> So, I'm hoping for the following to happen.
>> 1. Sergey sends a revised patch for patch 1/3.
>> 2. I put the patch on the for-next branch.
>> 3. Linus rebases his patch on top of that (while thinking about
>>    the questions raised by Sergey).
>> 4. Sergey tests the result, I and Jean review it, then possibly
>>    go back to 3.
>> 5. I put the patch on the for-next branch.
>>
>> Is that ok? Or is someone insisting that we take a detour?
>>
> 
> The series was intended to add the gpiod support to the i2c-mux-gpio driver
> (see the cover letter of the series). So the last patch is the most valuable
> one. Without it the whole series is nothing but a small readability improvement.
> So it is pointless to merge the first patch only.

Agreed on all points, except perhaps for the "refuse" part below and
that the readability improvement of patch 1/3 is perhaps not all that
pointless.

> Anyway since you refuse to add the last patch and the first patch is actually
> pointless without the rest of the series, and I would have to spend my time to
> resubmit the v3 of the first patch anyway, it was much easier to test the
> current version of the Linus' patch and make it working for OF-based platforms.
> Additionally the Linus' patch also reaches the main goal of this patchset.

I'm very pleased that you do not feel totally put off, and are willing
to help even if we end up storing your series in /dev/null. Kudos!

> I don't know what would be the appropriate way to send the updated version of
> the Linus' patch. So I just attached the v4 of it to this email. Shall I better
> send it in reply to the Linus' patch series?

I get the impression that you have already done the work? In that case,
how I would proceed would depend on how big the difference is. If it's
just a few one-liners here and there, I think I would make a detailed
review comment so that it is easy for Linus to incorporate the needed
changes. If it's anything even remotely complex I would post an
incremental patch. Of course, the former does not exclude the latter,
but I do think an incremental patch is better than a repost.

Thanks again!

Cheers,
Peter

Powered by blists - more mailing lists