linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] serdev: Set fwnode for serdev devices

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: <faad8810-7aa4-e122-f497-73553feb8bcd@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 Mar 2023 09:51:04 -0800
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:     Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>,
        Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@...e.com>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>, kernel-team@...roid.com,
        linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] serdev: Set fwnode for serdev devices



On 3/2/2023 9:20 AM, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 9:01 AM Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@...e.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Saravana,
>>
>> Am 02.03.23 um 03:35 schrieb Saravana Kannan:
>>> This allow fw_devlink to do dependency tracking for serdev devices.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/03b70a8a-0591-f28b-a567-9d2f736f17e5@gmail.com/
>>> Cc: Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@...e.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>
>>
>> since this fixes an issue on Raspberry Pi 4, shouldn't this be mentioned
>> in the commit message and providing a Fixes tag?
> 
> So RPi 4 was never creating a device links between serdev devices and
> their consumers. The error message was just a new one I added and we
> are noticing and catching the fact that serdev wasn't setting fwnode
> for a device.
> 
> I'm also not sure if I can say this commit "Fixes" an issue in serdev
> core because when serdev core was written, fw_devlink wasn't a thing.
> Once I add Fixes, people will start pulling this into stable
> branches/other trees where I don't think this should be pulled into
> older stable branches.

That is kind of the point of Fixes: tag, is not it? It is appropriate to 
list a commit that is not specific to serdev, but maybe a particular 
point into the fw_devlink history. Given this did not appear to have a 
functional impact, we could go without one.
-- 
Florian