linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Add software node support to regulator framework

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, 12 Jul 2021 14:34:28 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Mark Gross <mgross@...ux.intel.com>,
        Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@...il.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
        kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Add software node support to regulator framework

On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 04:01:05PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

> The software nodes shouldn't appear on its own in the generic code.
> When we use software nodes API in it, it means that we have tried
> other providers _explicitly_ and haven't found what we are looking for
> and hence we have to check if software nodes are providing the same.
> For example, here it's done that way:
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.14-rc1/source/kernel/irq/irqdomain.c#L178.

> In all other cases it shouldn't be called explicitly.

But why?  I'm not seeing the advantage over providing platform data
based on DMI quirks here, it seems like a bunch of work for no reason.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)