linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] pwm: lpss: Allow other drivers to enable PWM LPSS

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 11 Nov 2022 15:50:50 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc:     Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] pwm: lpss: Allow other drivers to enable PWM LPSS

On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 11:23:17AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 11:58:53AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 9:28 AM Uwe Kleine-König
> > <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 04:22:24PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > The PWM LPSS device can be embedded in another device.
> > > > In order to enable it, allow that drivers to probe
> > > > a corresponding device.

...

> > > Now that pwm_lpss_boardinfo lives in a different file, this makes the
> > > move of pwm_lpss_chip in patch 3 somewhat redundant.
> > 
> > But they are independent changes. At each stage (after each patch) we
> > should have a finished step, right? Not touching that makes me feel
> > that the step is half-baked. If you insist I can drop that move from
> > the other patch.
> 
> Given that the move is something you do just en passant in the earlier
> patch , I consider my suggestion cleaner. I'd call that 0.5 * insist.

I have looked again and I have noticed that in the current state we have

	sturct pwm_lpss_chip {
		...
	};

	struct pwm_lpss_boardinfo {
		...
	};

	extern struct pwm_lpss_boardinfo ...;


In the proposed change (with move included) it becomes

	#include <...>

	extern struct pwm_lpss_boardinfo ...;

	sturct pwm_lpss_chip {
		...
	};

and without

	#include <...>

	sturct pwm_lpss_chip {
		...
	};

	extern struct pwm_lpss_boardinfo ...;

And I consider that my way is slightly better in terms of ordering.
That said, I will leave it as is for v3. We may continue discussing
it further there.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko