linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] pinctrl: denverton: Enable platform device in the absence of ACPI enumeration

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: <ZR52DZDCVEV3My5T@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 5 Oct 2023 11:38:37 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] pinctrl: denverton: Enable platform device in the
 absence of ACPI enumeration

On Thu, Oct 05, 2023 at 09:53:51AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 04/10/2023 21:42, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 4:20 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> wrote:
> >> On 04/10/2023 15:09, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 11:18 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> wrote:
> >>>> On 26/09/2023 21:08, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

...

> >>>>> +MODULE_ALIAS("platform:denverton-pinctrl");
> >>>>
> >>>> Why do you need the alias? It's the same as ID table. You most likely
> >>>> miss MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE() or your table is just wrong.
> >>>
> >>> This is cargo cult from pinctrl-broxton.c. If we want to fix, we need
> >>> to fix both.
> >>> Care to send patches?
> >>
> >> I don't understand how some other file affects this. Why do you exactly
> >> need module alias here? Which use-case does not work without it (after
> >> adding proper MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE())?
> > 
> > We try to keep these drivers uniform. So, if something should be done
> > differently, it should be done for all affected drivers.
> > Since patch is applied, now we have two drivers to improve.
> 
> Awesome reason. So if you add accidentally bug to one driver, it should
> be copied to other file as well.

I'm not sure where it's a bug, it works. The problem is implementation
and I believe Mika and certainly me agree with your points that
MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE() is a right way to go.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko