linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] hwmon: pmbus: adm1275: add adm1281 support

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: <dec55581-2f50-4125-9254-c6104b0a14cf@roeck-us.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 10:42:37 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
Cc: Jose Ramon San Buenaventura <jose.sanbuenaventura@...log.com>,
 linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>,
 Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
 Delphine CC Chiu <Delphine_CC_Chiu@...ynn.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] hwmon: pmbus: adm1275: add adm1281 support

On 4/26/24 10:01, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 10:52:03AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On 4/25/24 00:09, Jose Ramon San Buenaventura wrote:
>>> Adding support for adm1281 which is similar to adm1275
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jose Ramon San Buenaventura <jose.sanbuenaventura@...log.com>
>>
>> Patch is fine, but we'll need to wait for Conor's feedback
>> regarding the compatible fallback before I can apply it.
> 
> Oh, I didn't realise you were waiting for me. I had deleted the thread
> from my queue given I had already acked the patch.
> 
> I'm not really a fan of the warn when IDs don't match thing though,
> seems a bit unhelpful, unless you've running into scenarios where the
> firmware tells you there's a device present but actually there's some
> other incompatible one.

That is pretty much what we do, because many of the chips supported by the
driver are not or not fully compatible to each other. Sure, we could add
more information about fully compatible chips, but in my opinion that would
just add complexity to the driver for little if any gain.

Thanks,
Guenter