linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] platform: x86: Add intel_skl

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]

Date:   Sun, 7 Feb 2021 13:56:27 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-i2c <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
        Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
        devel@...ica.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Mark Gross <mgross@...ux.intel.com>,
        Robert Moore <robert.moore@...el.com>,
        Erik Kaneda <erik.kaneda@...el.com>,
        Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
        kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] platform: x86: Add intel_skl_int3472 driver

On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 1:00 PM Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com> wrote:
> On 21/01/2021 00:18, Daniel Scally wrote:
> > On 20/01/2021 12:57, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

...

> > I'm not sure that one's better than the other, to be honest. Either the
> > multi-function device functionality lives in the conventional place, or
> > else _all_ of the int3472 handling code lives together in one module.
> Can we come to a consensus on this? I would rather be in agreement than
> leave it hanging...I do see the argument that it's better not to rebirth
> the MFD driver away from that subsystem, but at the moment I lean
> towards the view that having all the code handling this particular _HID
> in one place is probably preferable, if only to make it easier for
> anyone coming in the future to understand what's happening. That said;
> I'm not particularly precious about it, I'd just like to agree an
> approach so I can move forward with the next version

So, my priorities of rejection (first is higher)
- open-coding MFD subsystem (that said, if you shuffle the code, at
least leave it as an MFD driver)
- moving out from MFD (although I understand intentions)

Summarize, go ahead with your view (leaving it as an MFD driver) and
look forward to what maintainer(s) will say.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko