linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 08/10] dmaengine: dw: Add dummy device

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, 28 May 2020 23:29:16 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@...kalelectronics.ru>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>,
        Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Alexey Malahov <Alexey.Malahov@...kalelectronics.ru>,
        Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        dmaengine <dmaengine@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/10] dmaengine: dw: Add dummy device_caps callback

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 6:30 PM Serge Semin
<Sergey.Semin@...kalelectronics.ru> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 05:53:03PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 01:50:19AM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> > > Since some DW DMA controllers (like one installed on Baikal-T1 SoC) may
> > > have non-uniform DMA capabilities per device channels, let's add
> > > the DW DMA specific device_caps callback to expose that specifics up to
> > > the DMA consumer. It's a dummy function for now. We'll fill it in with
> > > capabilities overrides in the next commits.
> >
> > I think per se it is not worth to have it separated. Squash into the next one.
>
> bikeshadding?

Actually no.

> There is no any difference whether I add a dummy callback, then
> fill it in in a following up patch, or have the callback added together
> with some content. Let's see what Vinod thinks of it. Until then I'll stick with
> the current solution.

The rule of thumb that we don't add dead code or code which is useless
per se. Go ahead and provide it with some usefulness.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko