linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] leds: simatic-ipc-leds-gpio: split up into multiple drivers

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: <20230221154354.290ae938@md1za8fc.ad001.siemens.net>
Date:   Tue, 21 Feb 2023 15:43:54 +0100
From:   Henning Schild <henning.schild@...mens.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Mark Gross <markgross@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-leds@...r.kernel.org,
        platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] leds: simatic-ipc-leds-gpio: split up into multiple
 drivers

Am Tue, 21 Feb 2023 15:51:03 +0200
schrieb Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>:

> On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 01:24:13PM +0100, Henning Schild wrote:
> > In order to clearly describe the dependencies between the gpio  
> 
> GPIO
> 
> > controller drivers and the users the driver is split up into two
> > and one  
> 
> one --> a
> 
> > common header.  
> 
> ...
> 
> > + * Authors:  
> 
> (everywhere where it is a single author, 's' is redundant)
> 
> ...
> 
> > +#ifndef __DRIVERS_LEDS_SIMPLE_SIMATIC_IPC_LEDS_GPIO
> > +#define __DRIVERS_LEDS_SIMPLE_SIMATIC_IPC_LEDS_GPIO  
> 
> > +#endif /* __DRIVERS_LEDS_SIMPLE_SIMATIC_IPC_LEDS_GPIO */  
> 
> This header doesn't look right.
> 
> Have you run `make W=1 ...` against your patches?

No reports.

> Even if it doesn't show defined but unused errors
> the idea is that this should be a C-file, called,
> let's say, ...-core.c.

When i started i kind of had a -common.c in mind as well. But then the
header idea came and i gave it a try, expecting questions in the review.

It might be a bit unconventional but it seems to do the trick pretty
well. Do you see a concrete problem or a violation of a rule?

Henning