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]

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 22:17:50 +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 08:12:09PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 10:04:43PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 
> > There is currently a dependency among others PCI || ACPI || COMPILE_TEST
> 
> > From the point of view of the real platforms it means that if there is
> > a PCI compiled we support PCI devices that use this "platform" driver.
> > Similar with ACPI.
> 
> > What you want is to hide this in the menuconfig for the irrelevant platforms
> > which have PCI _or_ ACPI enabled, correct?
> 
> > But if we add x86 dependency to that, it will drop the support for non-x86
> > ACPI-based platforms with this device. I have no clue what are those.
> 
> Given the history I would be surprised to learn of any platforms that
> have used this other than PXA, MMP or x86.  It's possible Intel shipped
> the IP directly exposed on a PCI card of some kind but it'd be pretty
> surprising given the way it tends to get used and the idiom for PCI
> cards, Marvell having done that would be even more surprising.  The x86
> uses I'm aware of are integrated into the chipset rather than something
> meaingfully separate to the SoC.

Okay, do you want to have an experimental (that we might revert in the future
if any regression being reported) patch to narrow this dependencies as I
described above?

I can prepend the v2 with a such.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko