linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] mfd: 88pm88x: differences with respect to the PMIC RFC series

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]

Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 16:06:08 +0100
From: "Karel Balej" <karelb@...li.ms.mff.cuni.cz>
To: "Lee Jones" <lee@...nel.org>
Cc: "Karel Balej" <balejk@...fyz.cz>, "Rob Herring" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
 "Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, "Conor Dooley"
 <conor+dt@...nel.org>, "Liam Girdwood" <lgirdwood@...il.com>, "Mark Brown"
 <broonie@...nel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Duje Mihanović
 <duje.mihanovic@...le.hr>, <~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht>,
 <phone-devel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] mfd: 88pm88x: differences with respect to the
 PMIC RFC series

Lee,

On Thu Jan 11, 2024 at 11:54 AM CET, Lee Jones wrote:
> The subject needs work.  Please tell us what the patches is doing.
>
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2023, Karel Balej wrote:
>
> > From: Karel Balej <balejk@...fyz.cz>
>
> A full an complete commit message is a must.

I have not provided a detailed description here because as I have noted
in the cover letter, this patch will be squashed into the MFD series. I
sent it only as a bridge between the two series, sorry for the
confusion.

> > diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h b/include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h
> > index a34c57447827..9a335f6b9c07 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h
> > @@ -49,6 +49,8 @@ struct pm88x_data {
> >  	unsigned int whoami;
> >  	struct reg_sequence *presets;
> >  	unsigned int num_presets;
> > +	struct mfd_cell *devs;
> > +	unsigned int num_devs;
>
> Why are you adding extra abstraction?

Right, this is probably not necessary now since I'm only implementing
support for one of the chips - it's just that I keep thinking about it
as a driver for both of them and thus tend to write it a bit more
abstractly. Shall I then drop this and also the `presets` member which
is also chip-specific?

Thank you, best regards,
K. B.