linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 3/6] spi: pxa2xx: Remove no more needed PCI ID table

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: <Y1ASXFOuc2uGXOlV@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 19 Oct 2022 18:06:04 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>,
        Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...il.com>,
        Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@...e.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/6] spi: pxa2xx: Remove no more needed PCI ID table

On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 12:42:03PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 08:41:24PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 06:39:19PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

Thank you for your review!

> > > Which board code is this?  The names of the new properties you're adding
> > > is really not at all idiomatic for ACPI and this is pretty old code so
> > > it's surprising that there's not existing systems that don't have this
> > > in their BIOSs.
> 
> > drivers/mfd/intel-lpss-pci.c.
> 
> OK, so this is another push for device properties for passing stuff
> internally.  Please resubmit this series with descriptions of why this
> is being done - I really can't tell what the benefit is here in concrete
> terms, you say it somehow improves identification of which variant is in
> use but don't articulate specifically why.

I have sent a v2.

> You should probably also restructure the code interpreting the device
> IDs so that it's very clear that unknown values are handled well, this
> would split things between multiple subsystems and right now the code is
> a bit fragile.

I'm not sure how better to do this. Any example?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko