linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] dmaengine: qcom: gpi: document preferred SM6350 binding

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: <20221018003727.22763-1-mailingradian@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 17 Oct 2022 20:37:28 -0400
From:   Richard Acayan <mailingradian@...il.com>
To:     Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org>,
        Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Richard Acayan <mailingradian@...il.com>,
        Melody Olvera <quic_molvera@...cinc.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] dmaengine: qcom: gpi: document preferred SM6350 binding

> On 17/10/2022 18:00, Richard Acayan wrote:
>>> On 17/10/2022 17:23, Richard Acayan wrote:
>>>>> Devices with ee offset of 0x10000 should rather bind with SM6350
>>>>> compatible, so the list will not unnecessarily grow for compatible
>>>>> devices.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  drivers/dma/qcom/gpi.c | 7 ++++---
>>>>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/dma/qcom/gpi.c b/drivers/dma/qcom/gpi.c
>>>>> index f8e19e6e6117..061add832295 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/dma/qcom/gpi.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/dma/qcom/gpi.c
>>>>> @@ -2286,13 +2286,14 @@ static int gpi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>>  }
>>>>>  
>>>>>  static const struct of_device_id gpi_of_match[] = {
>>>>> -	{ .compatible = "qcom,sc7280-gpi-dma", .data = (void *)0x10000 },
>>>>>  	{ .compatible = "qcom,sdm845-gpi-dma", .data = (void *)0x0 },
>>>>>  	{ .compatible = "qcom,sm6350-gpi-dma", .data = (void *)0x10000 },
>>>>>  	/*
>>>>> -	 * Deprecated, devices with ee_offset = 0 should use sdm845-gpi-dma as
>>>>> -	 * fallback and not need their own entries here.
>>>>
>>>> This comment is from the dependency series [1]. Why would we need to add it just
>>>> to remove it here? I was not notified that the dependency was applied anywhere
>>>> (except as a base for other series) so it's not set in stone. Let's just drop
>>>> the original patch that this comment originates from to prevent needlessly
>>>> adding and removing the same lines at once.
>>>
>>> I don't remove the comment, I re-phrase it to be better suited for final
>>> code.
>> 
>> Yes, I didn't word that exactly right. I still think the patch that adds this is
>> now useless if it's just going to be replaced. Do you think I should keep the
>> patch that this comment originates from, even though we already know exactly how
>> its substantial contents will be replaced?
>> 
>> We can't modify history and drop commits on kernel trees, but I can still send
>> a v6 series that drops the original comment.
> 
> Sure. You can make it then:
> 
> 	 * Do not grow the list for compatible devices. Instead use
> 	 * qcom,sdm845-gpi-dma (for ee_offset = 0x0).

If you don't want me to drop the original patch completely, then there is no
need to make any changes at all to the driver patches IMHO. I originally thought
we only needed one patch for the driver (yours) but you seem to have a really
good reason not to drop the original patch. Sorry for asking.

I guess you can add this if you want:

Acked-by: Richard Acayan <mailingradian@...il.com>

> 
> And my patch will just change one line.
> 
> We can also keep it like:
> 
> 	 * Do not grow the list for compatible devices. Instead use
> 	 * proper fallback compatibles.
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>