linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 02/16] mfd: mfd-core: Don't overwrite the dma

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:   Thu, 14 May 2020 22:45:53 +0200
From:   Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
        Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>, Li Yang <leoyang.li@....com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/16] mfd: mfd-core: Don't overwrite the dma_mask of
 the child device

Am 2020-04-28 17:25, schrieb Mark Brown:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 03:49:49PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> 
>> For better or worse, the platform bus is the dumping ground for random 
>> crap,
>> so we just have to deal with all the abstraction breakage that leaks 
>> out of
>> that.
> 
> The reason we're using the platform bus for this is that historically
> people were creating buses which were essentially carbon copies of the
> platform bus with the name changed and it was felt that rather than
> duplicate code it was better to just use platform devices with no MMIO
> ranges defined.  If there's some assumptions about DMA for platform
> devices floating about somewhere it might be reasonable to revisit this
> and create a non-DMA variant of platform devices since there is a
> meaningful difference.

Was there any conclusion? Should I keep or drop this patch in the next 
version
of this series?

-- 
-michael