linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] include: linux: spi: more helpers for declaring spi drivers

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 19 Jun 2019 13:14:41 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <info@...ux.net>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linus.walleij@...aro.org,
        bgolaszewski@...libre.com, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-spi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] include: linux: spi: more helpers for declaring spi
 drivers

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 08:40:38PM +0200, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote:

> +/* subsys_spi_driver() - Helper macro for drivers that don't do
> + * anything special in module init/exit.  This eliminates a lot of
> + * boilerplate.  Each module may only use this macro once, and
> + * calling it replaces subsys_initcall() and module_exit()
> + */
> +#define subsys_spi_driver(__spi_driver) \

I'm not convinced we want to be encouraging anyone to be using
subsys_initcall() for SPI drivers in the first place - my guess would be
that with deferred probing none of that is needed anyway and the driver
could just use module_spi_driver().  Certainly if the drivers do
actually need subsys_initcall() I'd like to understand why before going
forward with something like this, and ideally we'd be able to remove the
need.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)