linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] serdev: Fix detection of UART devices on Apple machines.

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:   Sun, 23 Feb 2020 09:22:01 +0100
From:   Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Ronald Tschalär <ronald@...ovation.ch>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
        Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@...il.com>,
        linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] serdev: Fix detection of UART devices on Apple machines.

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 07:47:23AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 10:33:35PM -0800, Ronald Tschalär wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:15:19PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 11:47:23AM -0800, Ronald Tschalär wrote:
> > > > +#include <linux/platform_data/x86/apple.h>
> > > 
> > > Why is this needed?  Just for the x86_apple_machine variable?
> 
> That's fine, but what I am objecting to is platform-specific include
> files being added to random common kernel code.  There's no real reason
> for this other than one specific hardware platform has a quirk.  Are we
> supposed to keep this pattern up by doing tons of:
> 	#include <linux/platform_data/x86/vendor_X>
> 	#include <linux/platform_data/x86/vendor_Y>
> 	#include <linux/platform_data/x86/vendor_Z>
> all through the kernel?
> 
> That's a serious regression to the "bad old days" of platform specific
> crud being required in each and every driver subsystem.
> 
> Now I know it's not your fault this is needed for your one change, but
> can you work on a patch series to fix this all up so that it is not
> needed?  I'm sure the x86 maintainers don't want to see this spread
> around.

Andy (+cc) submitted a patch for the change you're requesting in January:

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200122112306.64598-2-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com/

The x86 maintainers haven't picked it up yet.

Ronald's patch fixes a regression.  Please apply it at your earliest
convenience.

Thanks,

Lukas