linux-kernel - Re: [PULL REQUEST] i2c for v5.18

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: <CAHk-=wgoeUc15-8Wu8U=4FnwhgmyU3C13R107oigbmJRpi_sZA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 26 Mar 2022 12:58:36 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
        Terry Bowman <terry.bowman@....com>
Subject: Re: [PULL REQUEST] i2c for v5.18

On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 1:28 AM Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> I2C has for 5.18: tracepoints when Linux acts as an I2C client, added
> support for AMD PSP, whole subsytsem now uses generic_handle_irq_safe(),
> piix4 driver gained MMIO access enabling so far missed controllers with
> AMD chipsets, plus a bulk of device driver updates, refactorization, and
> fixes.

It feels odd/wrong to use the piix4 driver for the AMD MMIO case on SB800.

Would it not have made more sense to just make that a separate driver?

It feels like now the piix4 driver has a lot of "if SB800" for the
probing code, and then a lot of "if (mmio)" at runtime.

I've pulled this, but just wanted to mention this "that looks a bit
odd". How much code is actually _shared_ in the SB800 case?

I'm not insisting on splitting this up - maybe it all makes sense. I'm
just questioning it.

             Linus