linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] mfd: core: Make a best effort attempt to match devices with the correct of

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]

Message-ID: <53200e52-bc53-1351-dc90-b775c29f8456@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 Jun 2020 11:25:29 -0500
From:   Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
To:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:     andy.shevchenko@...il.com, michael@...le.cc, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        broonie@...nel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linus.walleij@...aro.org, linux@...ck-us.net,
        andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, robin.murphy@....com,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] mfd: core: Make a best effort attempt to match
 devices with the correct of_nodes

On 2020-06-24 11:14, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
> 
>> On 2020-06-24 02:46, Lee Jones wrote:
>>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2020-06-23 14:59, Lee Jones wrote:
>>
>> < big snip >
>>
>> Thanks for the replies in the above portion.
> 
> NP.
> 
>>>>>> But yes or no to my solution #2 (with some slight changes to
>>>>>> make it better (more gracious handling of the detected error) as
>>>>>> discussed elsewhere in the email thread)?
>>>>>
>>>>> Please see "[0]" above!
>>>>>
>>>>> AFAICT your solution #2 involves bombing out *all* devices if there is
>>>>> a duplicate compatible with no 'reg' property value.  This is a)
>>>>> over-kill and b) not an error, as I mentioned:
>>>>
>>>> As I mentioned above, I set you up to have this misunderstanding by
>>>> a mistake in one of my earlier emails.  So now that I have pointed
>>>> out what I meant here by "more gracious handling of the detected
>>>> error", what do you think of my amended solution #2?
>>>
>>> Explained above, but the LT;DR is that it's not correct.
>>
>> I don't agree with you, I think my solution is better.  Even if I
>> prefer my solution, I find your solution to be good enough.
> 
> I still don't see how it could work, but please feel free to submit a
> subsequent patch and we can discuss it on its own merits.
> 
>> So I am dropping my specific objection to returning -EAGAIN from
>> mfd_match_of_node_to_dev() when the node has previously been
>> allocated to a device.
> 
> Great.  Thanks for taking an interest.
> 
> Does this mean I can apply your Reviewed-by?
> 

No, please do not.  I don't want to give the patch that strong
of an endorsement.