linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 4/9] i2c: designware: Propagate firmware node

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: <20230804205956.uuna4c76ww64z3zm@intel.intel>
Date:   Fri, 4 Aug 2023 22:59:56 +0200
From:   Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jan Dabros <jsd@...ihalf.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 4/9] i2c: designware: Propagate firmware node

Hi Andy,

On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 11:09:24PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 03:25:58PM +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
> > On 7/25/23 17:30, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > Propagate firmware node by using a specific API call, i.e. device_set_node().
> 
> ...
> 
> > > +	device_set_node(&dev->adapter.dev, dev_fwnode(dev->dev));
> > 
> > Would this be better to put in the same place where ACPI_COMPANION_SET() is
> > removed like below? I'd keep this static inline function in the header file
> > as simple as possible. All extra code might invite adding even more.
> 
> We come again to the duplication and prone to deviation code, I wouldn't like
> to go this way. The idea of this call is to unify and avoid mistakes, like
> updating only in ACPI or DT (or any new one if happens in the future) case
> and leaving the second one unconsidered.

it's anyway an inline function becoming a bit too fat. Can't we
make it not inline?

> That said, I would rather drop this patch until i2c core will take this
> once for all (may be never in the reasonable future :-).

Which patch are you referring to that should be taken into i2c
core?

Andi