linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] fbtft: Unorphan the driver

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]

Message-ID: <YffiwCiFnqF1X1pD@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 31 Jan 2022 15:23:12 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Michael Hennerich <michael.hennerich@...log.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Helge Deller <deller@....de>, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk>,
        Carlis <zhangxuezhi1@...ong.com>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] fbtft: Unorphan the driver

On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 01:08:32PM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> On 1/31/22 12:36, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

...

> >> +config TINYDRM_SSD130X
> >> +	tristate "DRM support for Solomon SSD130X OLED displays"
> >> +	depends on DRM && OF && I2C
> > 
> > Please, make sure that it does NOT dependent on OF.
> > 
> 
> I actually added this dependency deliberative. It's true that the driver is using
> the device properties API and so there isn't anything from the properties parsing
> point of view that depends on OF. And the original driver didn't depend on OF.
> 
> But the original driver also only would had worked with Device Trees since the
> of_device_id table is the only one that contains the device specific data info.
> 
> The i2c_device_id table only listed the devices supported to match, but then it
> would only had worked with the default values that are set by the driver.
> 
> So in practice it *does* depend on OF. I'll be happy to drop that dependency if
> you provide an acpi_device_id table to match.

The code is deceptive and you become to a wrong conclusion. No, the driver
does NOT depend on OF as a matter of fact. The tricky part is the PRP0001
ACPI PNP ID that allows to reuse it on ACPI-based platforms.

That said, please drop OF dependency.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko