linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND v2 4/6] soc: starfive: Extract JH7110 pmu private operations

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: <8ce740ac-54e9-bf31-1e03-2f3e0e9ef63c@starfivetech.com>
Date:   Fri, 21 Apr 2023 11:27:52 +0800
From:   Changhuang Liang <changhuang.liang@...rfivetech.com>
To:     Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
CC:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@...il.dk>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        Walker Chen <walker.chen@...rfivetech.com>,
        Hal Feng <hal.feng@...rfivetech.com>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND v2 4/6] soc: starfive: Extract JH7110 pmu private
 operations



On 2023/4/20 1:47, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 08:56:44PM -0700, Changhuang Liang wrote:
>> Move JH7110 private operation into private data of compatible.
>> Convenient to expand different compatible.
> 
> I prefer how the code looks in v2, thanks.
> However, just as in the prior patch, "Convenient to expand different
> compatible" isn't really a justification - specifically, supporting the
> power domain controller serving the dphy is your motivation here. The
> important difference being that it uses a regmap from a syscon and has
> no interrupts nor the encourage features.
> 

So should I expand the commit message which called "in order to add the 
aon power domain" although the patch is applied behind current patch.

> Although, given the only real similarity the code driving each of the
> PMUs is the variable names, I guess you could argue that this driver
> should be left alone and the "aon dphy" should be a different driver
> altogether.
> 

I have tried independent this aon pmu, but it code is very similar to the
original pmu, so I think they can put together, reduce linux kernel bloat.

> I don't have a strong opinion though & if it's fine with Walker and
> noone else objects, it's fine with me...