linux-kernel - Re: [v1,1/3] drm/panel: ili9341: Correct use of device property APIs

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: <ZjD8eoO3TmuCUj-a@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 17:13:14 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Sui Jingfeng <sui.jingfeng@...ux.dev>
Cc: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Jessica Zhang <quic_jesszhan@...cinc.com>,
	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
	Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
	Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
	David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
Subject: Re: [v1,1/3] drm/panel: ili9341: Correct use of device property APIs

On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 05:13:43AM +0800, Sui Jingfeng wrote:
> On 2024/4/26 03:12, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 02:53:22AM +0800, Sui Jingfeng wrote:
> > > On 2024/4/26 02:08, Sui Jingfeng wrote:

..

> > Are you speaking to yourself? I'm totally lost.
> > 
> > Please, if you want to give a constructive feedback, try to understand
> > the topic from different aspects and then clearly express it.
> 
> OK,
> 
> The previous email analysis the non-DT cases exhaustively, this email intend to
> demonstrate the more frequently use case.
> 
> That is, in the *DT('OF')* based systems,
> device_get_match_data() is completely equivalent to
> of_device_get_match_data().

> So the net results of applying this patch are "no gains and no lost".

This is not true. It's only part of the cases, i.e. DT. So, I assume you meant

  "So the net results of applying this patch are "no gains and no lost" in DT case".

> Things will become clear if we divide the whole problem into two cases(DT and non-DT)
> to discuss, that's it. That's all I can tell.

Not really. non-DT cases can also be divided to "fwnode backed or not", and
the former might be subdivided to "is it swnode backed or real fwnode one?"

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko