linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 4/4] gpio: dwapb: Get rid of legacy platform data

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, 2 Aug 2021 18:54:16 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@...kalelectronics.ru>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Hoan Tran <hoan@...amperecomputing.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 4/4] gpio: dwapb: Get rid of legacy platform data

On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 5:23 PM Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 03:54:36PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > Platform data is a legacy interface to supply device properties
> > to the driver. In this case we don't have anymore in-kernel users
> > for it. Just remove it for good.


> > +struct dwapb_port_property {
> > +     struct fwnode_handle *fwnode;
> > +     unsigned int idx;
> > +     unsigned int ngpio;
> > +     unsigned int gpio_base;
> > +     int irq[DWAPB_MAX_GPIOS];
> > +};
> > +
> > +struct dwapb_platform_data {
> > +     struct dwapb_port_property *properties;
> > +     unsigned int nports;
> > +};
> > +
> >  struct dwapb_gpio;
>
> If you need to resend the series anyway could you please move the
> structures declarations to being below the forward declaration of the
> dwapb_gpio structure? Of course it's not that critical, but for the
> sake of just not to have the later one left somewhere in the middle of
> the unrelated structures and for at least to keep some order in the
> declarations.

Fine with me, I'll modify accordingly in the next version, thanks for
the review!

> Then feel free to add:
> Acked-by: Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>
>
> The whole series has been tested on Baikal-T1 SoC:
> Tested-by: Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko