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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2019 03:03:20 +0000 From: "Zengtao (B)" <prime.zeng@...ilicon.com> To: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com> CC: "kishon@...com" <kishon@...com>, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>, "Paul Kocialkowski" <paul.kocialkowski@...tlin.com>, Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org> Subject: RE: [PATCH] phy: Change the configuration interface param to void* to make it more general Hi maxime: >-----Original Message----- >From: Maxime Ripard [mailto:maxime.ripard@...tlin.com] >Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 12:38 AM >To: Zengtao (B) <prime.zeng@...ilicon.com> >Cc: kishon@...com; Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>; Paul Kocialkowski ><paul.kocialkowski@...tlin.com>; Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>; >linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org >Subject: Re: [PATCH] phy: Change the configuration interface param to void* >to make it more general > >Hi, > >On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 06:36:09AM +0000, Zengtao (B) wrote: >> Hi Maxime: >> >> Thanks for your reply. >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Maxime Ripard [mailto:maxime.ripard@...tlin.com] >> >Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2019 7:21 PM >> >To: Zengtao (B) <prime.zeng@...ilicon.com> >> >Cc: kishon@...com; Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>; Paul Kocialkowski >> ><paul.kocialkowski@...tlin.com>; Sakari Ailus >> ><sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; >> >linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org >> >Subject: Re: [PATCH] phy: Change the configuration interface param to >> >void* to make it more general >> > >> >* PGP Signed by an unknown key >> > >> >On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 02:04:08AM +0800, Zeng Tao wrote: >> >> The phy framework now allows runtime configurations, but only >> >> limited to mipi now, and it's not reasonable to introduce user >> >> specified configurations into the union phy_configure_opts >> >> structure. An simple way is to replace with a void *. >> > >> >I'm not sure why it's unreasonable? >> > >> >> The phy.h will need to include vendor specific phy headers > >I'm not sure this is an issue. > >> and the union phy_configure_opts will become more complex. > >And this was the plan all along. > >> I don't think this is a good solution to include all vendor specific >> phy configs into a single union structure. > >The thing is, as Sakari have stated, this interface was meant as a generic way >to negotiate a configuration between a PHY consumer and a PHY provider (ie, >whatever sends data to the phy and the phy itself). > >If you remove the explicit type check, then you need to have prior knowledge >(and agreement) on both sides, which breaks the initial intent. I get your point, so if we follow your design, it will look this: union phy_configure_opts { struct xxxx1_phy phy1_opts; struct xxxx1_phy phy2_opts; struct xxxx1_phy phy3_opts; ..... } And the general phy framework needn't to know about the type but just pass through, the caller and the phy driver definitely need to know what they are doing. So I suggest a more general type void *, otherwise the general phy will need to see a lot of details which is not that general. Zengtao > >Maxime > >-- >Maxime Ripard, Bootlin >Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering >https://bootlin.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists