linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 6/9] i2c: fwnode: add fwnode_find_i2c_adapter_by

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: <Yj3mO/Co/RdlZnV+@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 25 Mar 2022 17:56:43 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Clément Léger <clement.leger@...tlin.com>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
        Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>, Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Allan Nielsen <allan.nielsen@...rochip.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/9] i2c: fwnode: add fwnode_find_i2c_adapter_by_node()

On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 04:09:27PM +0100, Clément Léger wrote:
> Le Fri, 25 Mar 2022 16:35:52 +0200,
> Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> a écrit :
> > On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 12:31:45PM +0100, Clément Léger wrote:

...

> > > +	 * For ACPI device node, the behavior is to not match the parent (see
> > > +	 *  did not checked the )
> > 
> > Would it be harmful to drop this check?
> 
> Can't tell, I would not want to introduce some behavior wrt to parent
> node for ACPI since it was not done this way. Might works in 99% of the
> case though.
> 
> If ok with that, I can drop it.

Let's ask Mika and Jarkko if they know more on this. I think Mika was the
one who introduced that (sorry, if I'm mistaken, haven't looked at the history
carefully).

P.S. Interesting enough that Mika is listed as I2C ACPI maintainer and his
email is not in the Cc. Please, check how you form Cc list for this series
and include all parties next time.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko