linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8] of: automate of_node_put()

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240223091334.00005522@Huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 09:13:34 +0000
From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
CC: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>, "Rob
 Herring" <robh@...nel.org>, Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...ia.fr>, "Peter
 Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>, Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>,
	Sumera Priyadarsini <sylphrenadin@...il.com>, "Rafael J . Wysocki"
	<rafael@...nel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	<linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman
	<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@...log.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] of: automate of_node_put() - new approach to loops.

On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:25:45 +0200
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 02:47:56PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 14:03:29 +0200
> > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:  
> > > On Sun, Feb 11, 2024 at 05:42:28PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:  
> 
> ...
> 
> > > I'm a bit skeptical about need of this work. What I would prefer to see
> > > is getting rid of OF-centric drivers in IIO. With that, we would need
> > > only fwnode part to be properly implemented.  
> > 
> > To be honest main reason for doing of first was that they have unit tests :)  
> 
> fwnode also has KUnit test. Have you considered adding test cases there?
> 
> > The IIO drivers were more of a proving ground than cases I really cared
> > out cleaning up.  However I'm always of the view that better to make
> > some improvement now than wait for a perfect improvement later.  
> 
> Yes, but in my opinion _in this particular case_ it brings more churn and
> some maybe even not good from educational purposes, i.e. one can look at
> the current series and think "oh, OF is still in use, let me provide my
> driver OF-only (for whatever reasons behind)", while targeting conversion
> first will tell people: "hey, there is an agnostic device property framework
> that should be used in a new code and that's why we have been converting old
> drivers too".
> 
> > However one or two are not going to be converted to fwnode handling
> > any time soon because they make use of phandle based referencing for
> > driver specific hook ups that isn't going to get generic handling any
> > time soon.  
> 
> Sure, exceptions happen.

After the series converting over most of the cases this patch set touched
in IIO, I have 

rcar-gyroadc and the unit test left, which are enough to show the purpose
of the patch and put a few real users in place.

Will submit a v2 with just those 2 users.  Ideal would be to get these in
for the merge window so it is available for other subsystems next cycle.

> 
> > I'll probably focus on getting the fwnode version of this moving
> > forwards first though and 'maybe' convert a few of the easier ones
> > of these over to that framework to reduce how many users of this
> > we end up with in IIO.  
> 
> Thanks!
>