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

Date:   Thu, 8 Sep 2022 10:25:44 +0200
From:   Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
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 05:27:22PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 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?

Sure:

Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>

> > 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.

I'm willing to believe that; please mention that in the commit log.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)