linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 01/10] spi: pxa2xx: Drop ACPI_PTR() and of_match

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: <ZgMf5eISwE2P_1tN@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 21:20:05 +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 01/10] spi: pxa2xx: Drop ACPI_PTR() and of_match_ptr()

On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 07:10:09PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 08:52:53PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 06:49:58PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> > > > > > > I think the ACPI dependency there is as much about hiding the device on
> > > > > > > irrelevant platforms as anything else, might be better replaced with an
> > > > > > > x86 dependency though.
> 
> > Oh, oh, my bad I missed acpi_dev_uid_to_integer() call.
> > Okay, with that in mind it's functional dependency for the ACPI-based
> > platforms. Do you want to keep it untouched?
> 
> That's not actually what I was thinking of (please read what I wrote
> above, like I say I was thining about hiding things) but surely if that
> was a reason to keep the dependency it'd need to be an actual ACPI
> dependency rather than an ||?

For my knowledge there is none of the ACPI-based platform where CONFIG_ACPI
needs to be 'n' while having the real device (as per ACPI ID table) to be on.
That's why I answered purely from the compilation point of view.

Personally I see that dependency more confusing than hinting about anything.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko