linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] soc: litex: Properly depend on HAS

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 28 Jan 2021 08:17:52 +0900
From:   Stafford Horne <shorne@...il.com>
To:     David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
Cc:     Pawel Czarnecki <pczarnecki@...ernships.antmicro.com>,
        Mateusz Holenko <mholenko@...micro.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] soc: litex: Properly depend on HAS_IOMEM

On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 12:49:56AM +0800, David Gow wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 8:27 PM Stafford Horne <shorne@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 07:36:04PM -0800, David Gow wrote:
> > > The LiteX SOC controller driver makes use of IOMEM functions like
> > > devm_platform_ioremap_resource(), which are only available if
> > > CONFIG_HAS_IOMEM is defined.
> > >
> > > This causes the driver not to be enable under make ARCH=um allyesconfig,
> > > even though it won't build.
> >
> > Is this wording correct?  I suspect it causes to driver TO BE enabled.
> >
> 
> Whoops! Yes: that should be "causes the driver to be enabled" -- sorry
> about that.
> 
> Let me know if you want me to re-send it with the fixed wording, or if
> you just want to fix that yourself.

OK, I'll fix it.

> > >
> > > By adding a dependency on HAS_IOMEM, the driver will not be enabled on
> > > architectures which don't support it.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 22447a99c97e ("drivers/soc/litex: add LiteX SoC Controller driver")
> > > Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>a
> >
> > This looks ok to me.  I can queue it for 5.11 fixes, if you can help with the
> > wording above.
> 
> Thanks: that'd be great!

No problem.

-Stafford