linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] Define i2c_designware in a header file

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 17:26:46 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jan Dabros <jsd@...ihalf.com>, Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>,
	Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, Jiawen Wu <jiawenwu@...stnetic.com>,
	Mengyuan Lou <mengyuanlou@...-swift.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
	Duanqiang Wen <duanqiangwen@...-swift.com>,
	"open list:SYNOPSYS DESIGNWARE I2C DRIVER" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
	"open list:WANGXUN ETHERNET DRIVER" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Define i2c_designware in a header file

On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 06:21:21PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 4/23/2024 4:56 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 04:36:18PM -0700, Florian Fainelli kirjoitti:
> > > This patch series depends upon the following two patches being applied:
> > > 
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240422084109.3201-1-duanqiangwen@net-swift.com/
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240422084109.3201-2-duanqiangwen@net-swift.com/
> > > 
> > > There is no reason why each driver should have to repeat the
> > > "i2c_designware" string all over the place, because when that happens we
> > > see the reverts like the above being necessary.
> > 
> > Isn't that a part of ABI between drivers, i.e. whenever ones want to
> > request_module() or so they need to know what they are doing, no?
> 
> Yes, the drivers should know, but as evidenced by the two patches above,
> there was still room for error. If we have to abide by a certain contract,
> which is platform_driver::driver::name, then we might as well have a header
> defining it no?

Maybe, I simply don't like the manipulations with parts of the device instance
names / driver IDs / driver name, which all become mixed after this series.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko