linux-kernel - Re: (subset) [PATCH v2 0/9] spi: pxa2xx: Drop linux/spi/pxa2xx

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: <Zg2OTvXCUhsk4KVr@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 20:13:50 +0300
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>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: (subset) [PATCH v2 0/9] spi: pxa2xx: Drop linux/spi/pxa2xx_spi.h

On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 04:50:00PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 05:41:30PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 
> > Linus was long time ago against board files. Yet, we have a few old
> > (kinda supported) boards left in the tree. The conversion makes the
> > driver be prepared for the DT conversion when it happens. From maintenance
> > perspective my patch reduced the code under the maintenance, which reduces
> > time spent by both contributors and maintainers on this.
> 
> > AFAIU all what you are moaning about is type checking. Okay, I got
> 
> The type checking is part of it, but it's more a general taste thing
> with using swnodes like this.  You've not actually removed the board
> file and it's hard to get enthusiastic about the change to the board
> file that results, or to see this as a substantial step towards DT
> conversion for the platform given the trivialness of the single
> property here.  As a general thing I don't want to encourage people to
> start randomly converting things to swnode rather than to DT.

Conversion to GPIO lookup tables is also the same in this sense.
But with it in place, the drivers aren't needed to be touched
when the real conversion happens. I agree, that _ideally_ we should
take that shot, but I am not an expert in DT and it will take a lot
for me to get to the shape, besides the fact of the ARM (platform)
specifics, which I'm far from. So, I prefer do step-by-step approach
if one developer can't fulfill the task. I.o.w. perfect is enemy of
good.

> > it, but we have a lot of other places with similar approach done,
> > e.g. GPIO_LOOKUP*() tables that basically gives something unconnected to the
> > driver without any platform data being involved and you seems to be fine with
> > that:
> 
> > $ git log --oneline --no-merges --grep 'Mark Brown' -- arch/ | grep 'GPIO desc'
> 
> > I randomly took this 366f36e2a ("ASoC: wm1250-ev1: Convert to GPIO descriptors").
> 
> > Can you tell how it is different to my proposal?
> 
> The main difference with the GPIO lookup tables is that they are
> structured data specifically for GPIOs rather than the general purpose
> free for all we have with swnode.

Semantically yes, technically they have all the same issues you pointed out
that swnode has.

Nevertheless, I'm about to send a part 2 of cleanup (I decided not mangle
this series, so it will be on top of this) for you to see how we can go
forward.

And thank you for this discussion.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko