linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] of/platform: Disable generic device linking code for PowerPC

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:   Wed, 14 Aug 2019 14:02:41 -0700
From:   Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>
To:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] of/platform: Disable generic device linking code for PowerPC

On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 3:04 PM Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 2:27 PM Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 1:27 PM Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > PowerPC platforms don't use the generic of/platform code to populate the
> > > devices from DT.
> >
> > Yes, they do.
>
> No they don't. My wording could be better, but they don't use
> of_platform_default_populate_init()
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/of/platform.c#n511
>
> >
> > > Therefore the generic device linking code is never used
> > > in PowerPC.  Compile it out to avoid warning about unused functions.
> >
> > I'd prefer this get disabled on PPC using 'if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PPC))
> > return' rather than #ifdefs.
>
> I'm just moving the existing ifndef some lines above. I don't want to
> go change existing #ifndef in this patch. Maybe that should be a
> separate patch series that goes and fixes all such code in drivers/of/
> or driver/

Bump. Thoughts? I don't think changing the existing if(n)defs should
be part of this patch series.

-Saravana