linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] pwm: core: Support new usage

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]

Date:   Mon, 7 Jun 2021 16:40:14 +0200
From:   Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
To:     Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc:     Clemens Gruber <clemens.gruber@...ruber.com>,
        Sven Van Asbroeck <TheSven73@...il.com>,
        linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel@...gutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] pwm: core: Support new usage_power setting in PWM
 state

On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 08:08:27AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello Thierry,
> 
> On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 11:49:37AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > In the interest of making forward progress, I've applied this series.
> 
> I proposed a different approach that in contrast to usage_power:
> 
>  - is well defined
>    (so driver authors and consumers know what to provide or expect resp.);
>  - has good name people understand without reading documentation;
>  - fully covers the problem Clemens want to address;
>  - fully covers what the only implementing lowlevel driver does; and
>  - is easy to implement based on the patches in this series
> 
> This is not what I call "forward progress". I take it personal that
> after I pointed out technical shortcomings with this patch set and even
> suggested a better concept, you didn't even made the effort to argue
> but instead simply went on applying the patches.

Forward progress doesn't always mean that everybody gets their way. And
this is nothing personal, so please don't take it that way.

I don't see where you pointed out technical shortcomings with this
patch, you merely pointed out that you don't like this solution and that
there might be a better way to implement it by expanding on the concepts
introduced in this patch series.

As I said, this is now no longer impacting ABI, so we can improve on
this further down the road if we choose to. However, I didn't see any
reason to postpone this any further. This is something that Clemens has
been working on for more than half a year and we've changed our minds
often enough. In my opinion this proposal is good enough.

Thierry

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)