linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 3/4] mfd: cros_ec: Check DT node for usbpd-notify add

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 10 Feb 2020 17:38:29 +0100
From:   Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@...labora.com>
To:     Prashant Malani <pmalani@...omium.org>
Cc:     Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
        Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>, lee.jones@...aro.org,
        sre@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 3/4] mfd: cros_ec: Check DT node for usbpd-notify add

Hi Prashant,

On 10/2/20 17:32, Prashant Malani wrote:
> Hi Enric,
> 
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2020, 02:11 Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@...labora.com
> <mailto:enric.balletbo@...labora.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi Prashant,
> 
>     On 27/1/20 15:50, Enric Balletbo i Serra wrote:
>     > Hi Prashant,
>     >
>     > On 25/1/20 0:18, Prashant Malani wrote:
>     >> Add a check to ensure there is indeed an EC device tree entry before
>     >> adding the cros-usbpd-notify device. This covers configs where both
>     >> CONFIG_ACPI and CONFIG_OF are defined, but the EC device is defined
>     >> using device tree and not in ACPI.
>     >>
>     >> Signed-off-by: Prashant Malani <pmalani@...omium.org
>     <mailto:pmalani@...omium.org>>
>     >
>     > With this change, an playing with different CONFIG_ACPI + CONFIG_OF
>     combinations
>     > I don't see anymore the problem where the driver is registered twice on
>     > CONFIG_ACPI side. So,
>     >
>     > Tested-by: Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@...labora.com
>     <mailto:enric.balletbo@...labora.com>>
>     >
>     > Maybe it requires a fixes tag if Lee already picked the other patch?
>     >
>     > Fixes: 4602dce0361e ("mfd: cros_ec: Add cros-usbpd-notify subdevice")
>     >
> 
>     Now that v7 from mfd side was merged and v8 from platform side was merged, could
>     you resend this specific patch alone collecting all the fixes and tested tags. I
>     guess will be more clear for mfd people.
> 
> 
> Sounds good. Should I maintain the same versioning and series info i.e v9 3/4?
> Or just v9?
> 

I'd do "[PATCH RESEND] mfd: cros_ec: Check DT node for usbpd-notify add" and
then after the "---" explain that you are resending this alone because the other
patches are already applied, and reference this patch series.

> Thanks,
> 
>     Thanks,
>      Enric
> 
>     >> ---
>     >>
>     >> Changes in v8:
>     >> - Patch first introduced in v8 of the series.
>     >>
>     >>  drivers/mfd/cros_ec_dev.c | 2 +-
>     >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>     >>
>     >> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/cros_ec_dev.c b/drivers/mfd/cros_ec_dev.c
>     >> index d0c28a4c10ad0..411e80fc9a066 100644
>     >> --- a/drivers/mfd/cros_ec_dev.c
>     >> +++ b/drivers/mfd/cros_ec_dev.c
>     >> @@ -212,7 +212,7 @@ static int ec_device_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>     >>       * explicitly added on platforms that don't have the PD notifier ACPI
>     >>       * device entry defined.
>     >>       */
>     >> -    if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF)) {
>     >> +    if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF) && ec->ec_dev->dev->of_node) {
>     >>              if (cros_ec_check_features(ec, EC_FEATURE_USB_PD)) {
>     >>                      retval = mfd_add_hotplug_devices(ec->dev,
>     >>                                      cros_usbpd_notify_cells,
>     >>
>