linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 07/10] spi: pxa2xx: Provide num-cs for Sharp PDAs via device properties

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: <ZgMY3AeC1Jnh1Oru@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 20:50:04 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>,
	Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...il.com>,
	Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@...e.fr>,
	Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 07/10] spi: pxa2xx: Provide num-cs for Sharp PDAs via
 device properties

On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 06:21:48PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 08:07:57PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 
> > Since driver can parse num-cs device property, replace platform data
> > with this new approach.
> 
> But why?

To be able to hide the header's contents from public.
Should I update the commit message?

..

> > +static const struct property_entry spitz_spi_properties[] = {
> > +	PROPERTY_ENTRY_U32("num-cs", 3),
> > +	{ }
> > +};
> 
> This is just platform data with less validation AFAICT.

I'm not sure what validation you are expecting here. It should be done via
DT schema ideally when the platform gets converted to DT. This change is
an interim to that (at least it makes kernel side better). After the platform
code may be gone completely or converted. If the latter happens, we got
the validation back.

In any case it's not worse than plain DT property handling in the kernel.
The validation in that case is done elsewhere. Since the property is defined
in board files the assumed validation is done during development/review
stages. But OTOH for the legacy code we need not to touch the property
provider more than once. We are _not_ expecting this to be spread.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko