linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V6 5/5] mmc: host: sdhci-pci: Add Genesys Logic GL975x support

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: <7fcd0fd5-97cb-1dab-7477-666838478541@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 29 Aug 2019 16:21:11 +0300
From:   Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
To:     "Michael K. Johnson" <johnsonm@...lj.org>
Cc:     Ben Chuang <benchuanggli@...il.com>, ulf.hansson@...aro.org,
        linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        ben.chuang@...esyslogic.com.tw
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 5/5] mmc: host: sdhci-pci: Add Genesys Logic GL975x
 support

On 28/08/19 4:47 PM, Michael K. Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 04:13:03PM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>> On 27/08/19 3:33 AM, Ben Chuang wrote:
>> Looks good, one minor comment
> ...
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_MMC_SDHCI_IO_ACCESSORS
>>
>> Arguably CONFIG_MMC_SDHCI_IO_ACCESSORS needs to be removed altogether. i.e.
>> making the accessors always available.  So for now, I'd prefer to select
>> MMC_SDHCI_IO_ACCESSORS:
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/Kconfig b/drivers/mmc/host/Kconfig
>> index 14d89a108edd..c3bd967d8a1a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/Kconfig
>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/Kconfig
>> @@ -94,6 +94,7 @@ config MMC_SDHCI_PCI
>>  	depends on MMC_SDHCI && PCI
>>  	select MMC_CQHCI
>>  	select IOSF_MBI if X86
>> +	select MMC_SDHCI_IO_ACCESSORS
>>  	help
>>  	  This selects the PCI Secure Digital Host Controller Interface.
>>  	  Most controllers found today are PCI devices.
> 
> Unless I'm missing something, this seems like a separate patch;
> are you asking for it first, as a predecessor to the GLI patch?
> 

No, it is fine with this patch.