linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 08/11] 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]

Message-ID: <20200715120145.GL34333@vkoul-mobl>
Date:   Wed, 15 Jul 2020 17:31:45 +0530
From:   Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
To:     Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@...kalelectronics.ru>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        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@...r.kernel.org, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 08/11] dmaengine: dw: Add dummy device_caps callback

On 10-07-20, 12:45, Serge Semin wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 11:51:23AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 01:45:47AM +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.
> > 
> 
> > Just a reminder (mainly to Vinod) of my view to this.
> > Unneeded churn, should be folded to patch 9.
> 
> Just to remind (mainly to Vinod). That's Andy's bikeshedding.
> This isn't a churn, since it's totally normal to design the patchset in this way:
> introduce a callback, then fill it in with functionality.

Looking at both patches, they do one thing, so please fold them in..

-- 
~Vinod