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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <CAHp75Ve=eY2KaPFgq3JDv1aGo_ajcNuKTV9rZQ+1f8uMJBocUw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 13 Jul 2021 18:55:59 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
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 Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 6:25 PM Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 12:32:26AM +0100, Daniel Scally wrote:

> > I do think it can simplify driver code too; a lot of them aren't written
> > to parse platform data to get the init data, as they're just relying on
> > reading it from devicetree so in the event that we get more cases like
> > this, we need to modify those drivers to look for platform data too. On
> > the other hand, even the drivers that don't directly call
> > of_get_regulator_init_data() still do that lookup during the
> > regulator_of_get_init_data() call in regulator_register(), so the ones
> > that do parse platform data for init_data structs will check DT as part
> > of regulator_register() anyway. Imitating that seems simpler to me.
>
> The driver code is trivial boilerplate, assuming someone doesn't go and
> implement a helper to register stuff separately like I suggested.  The
> proposed swnode stuff would involve duplicating the DT parsing code.
> This seems like a whole lot of effort for something that provides a
> worse result than either of the existing things.

I'm not sure I follow. Where did you see the duplication when I saw
the other way around?
Converting code from OF to fwnode APIs in most cases is smooth and
doesn't add any overhead to the codebase,

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko