linux-kernel - Re: [net-next PATCH v3 09/15] device property: Introduce fwnode_get

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: <CAGETcx-CFPa6hckV6RjWfOcYnrfoU1_vYYpLZtV_LgxNSDzthQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 22 Jan 2021 13:07:29 -0800
From:   Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Calvin Johnson <calvin.johnson@....nxp.com>,
        Grant Likely <grant.likely@....com>,
        Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Cristi Sovaiala <cristian.sovaiala@....com>,
        Florin Laurentiu Chiculita <florinlaurentiu.chiculita@....com>,
        Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@....com>,
        Madalin Bucur <madalin.bucur@....nxp.com>,
        Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Marcin Wojtas <mw@...ihalf.com>,
        Pieter Jansen Van Vuuren <pieter.jansenvv@...boosystems.io>,
        Jon <jon@...id-run.com>,
        Diana Madalina Craciun <diana.craciun@....com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Laurentiu Tudor <laurentiu.tudor@....com>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux.cj" <linux.cj@...il.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@...asonboard.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v3 09/15] device property: Introduce fwnode_get_id()

On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 1:05 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 10:59 PM Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 8:34 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 9:01 PM Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 11:15 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>
> > > > I'd rather this new function be an ops instead of a bunch of #ifdef or
> > > > if (acpi) checks. Thoughts?
> > >
> > > Well, it looks more like a helper function than like an op and I'm not
> > > even sure how many potential users of it will expect that _ADR should
> > > be evaluated in the absence of the "reg" property.
> > >
> > > It's just that the "reg" property happens to be kind of an _ADR
> > > equivalent in this particular binding AFAICS.
> >
> > I agree it is not clear how useful this helper function is going to be.
> >
> > But in general, to me, any time the wrapper/helper functions in
> > drivers/base/property.c need to do something like this:
> >
> > if (ACPI)
> >    ACPI specific code
> > if (OF)
> >    OF specific code
> >
> > I think the code should be pushed to the fwnode ops. That's one of the
> > main point of fwnode. So that firmware specific stuff is done by
> > firmware specific code. Also, when adding support for new firmware,
> > it's pretty clear what support the firmware needs to implement.
> > Instead of having to go fix up a bunch of code all over the place.
>
> Wishful thinking.
> In the very case of GPIO it's related to framework using headers local
> to framework. Are you suggesting to open its guts to the entire wild
> world?

What are you even talking about? How is whatever you are saying
remotely related to getting an "id" for a fwnode?

> I don't think it's a good idea. You see, here we have different
> layering POD types,

POD?

> which are natural and quite low level that ops
> suits best for them and quite different resource types like GPIO. And
> the latter is closer to certain framework rather than to POD handling
> cases.
>

-Saravana