linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/9] pwm: lpss: Deduplicate board info data structures

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: <YxiqSiP4dTa2bhUh@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 7 Sep 2022 17:27:22 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/9] pwm: lpss: Deduplicate board info data structures

On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 11:04:12AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 10:57:27PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > With help of __maybe_unused, that allows to avoid compilation warnings,
> > move the board info structures from the C files to the common header
> > and hence deduplicate configuration data.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss-pci.c      | 29 -----------------------------
> >  drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss-platform.c | 23 -----------------------
> >  drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.h          | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> Given that both the pci driver and the platform driver alread depend on
> pwm-lpss.o, I'd prefer something like the patch below to really
> deduplicate the data.

Why not? I can use yours in v2. Can I get your SoB tag?

> One thing to note is that the two pwm_lpss_bsw_info are not identical. I
> didn't check how that is relevant. Did you check that?

Yes, ACPI version should be used. Because switch to ACPI/PCI is done in BIOS
while quite likely the rest of AML code is the same, meaning similar issue
might be observed. The no bug report is due to no PCI enabled device in the
wild, I think, and only reference boards can be tested, so nobody really cares
about PCI Braswell case.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko