linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] drm/ili9341: Remove the duplicative driver

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: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 18:04:50 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
	Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
	Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
	David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
	Noralf Trønnes <noralf@...nnes.org>,
	David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>, Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
	linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] drm/ili9341: Remove the duplicative driver

On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 04:58:06PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 03:42:07PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > First of all, the driver was introduced when it was already
> > two drivers available for Ilitek 9341 panels.
> > 
> > Second, the most recent (fourth!) driver has incorporated this one
> > and hence, when enabled, it covers the provided functionality.
> > 
> > Taking into account the above, remove duplicative driver and make
> > maintenance and support eaiser for everybody.
> > 
> > Also see discussion [1] for details about Ilitek 9341 duplication
> > code.
> > 
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/ZXM9pG-53V4S8E2H@smile.fi.intel.com [1]
> > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
> 
> I think it should be the other way around and we should remove the
> mipi-dbi handling from panel/panel-ilitek-ili9341.c

Then please do it! I whining already for a few years about this.

> It's basically two drivers glued together for no particular reason and
> handling two very different use cases which just adds more complexity
> than it needs to.
> 
> And it's the only driver doing so afaik, so it's definitely not "least
> surprise" compliant.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko