linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 08/10] i2c: npcm: Remove own slave addresses 2:10

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 22 May 2022 22:09:35 +0200
From:   Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>
To:     Tali Perry <tali.perry1@...il.com>
Cc:     Tyrone Ting <warp5tw@...il.com>, avifishman70@...il.com,
        Tomer Maimon <tmaimon77@...il.com>,
        Patrick Venture <venture@...gle.com>,
        Nancy Yuen <yuenn@...gle.com>,
        Benjamin Fair <benjaminfair@...gle.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com, semen.protsenko@...aro.org,
        rafal@...ecki.pl, sven@...npeter.dev, jsd@...ihalf.com,
        jie.deng@...el.com, lukas.bulwahn@...il.com, arnd@...db.de,
        olof@...om.net, Tali Perry <tali.perry@...oton.com>,
        Avi Fishman <Avi.Fishman@...oton.com>,
        tomer.maimon@...oton.com, KWLIU@...oton.com, JJLIU0@...oton.com,
        kfting@...oton.com, OpenBMC Maillist <openbmc@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Linux I2C <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 08/10] i2c: npcm: Remove own slave addresses 2:10

Hi Tali,

> So when we encounter a deadlock with this spinlock we decided to get rid of this
> unused feature and get both a stable fix for the issue + performance benefits.
> We work closely with all our customers so we know that this HW
> feature is useless to them.

Okay, fair enough. Thanks for the detailed explanation!

> > Why do we keep this array if we drop the support?
> >
> This array represents the HW so we left it as-is. But I agree it can
> be shortened to one\two.

Would be nice, I think.

> OK, we will move the last two to a separate patch. BTW, this change
> appears in the title as well.

Yes, but I still think it should be a seperate change.

> But now I'm not sure: if you already apply for-next patches [1:7], and
> we change patch [8:10]
> do we need to re-submit [1:7]?

Nope, they are already in linux-next. They seemed like good fixes even
without the support for the new SoC, so I applied them right away. I
hope this was okay.

> Thanks, Wolfram, for your review!
> Much appreciated

You are welcome :)

Happy hacking,

   Wolfram


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)