linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] mfd: lm3533: Hide legacy platform data in the 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]

Message-ID: <ZloEYAJ6W0SkBIIu@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 20:09:52 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>
Cc: johan@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] mfd: lm3533: Hide legacy platform data in the
 driver

On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 05:58:34PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Fri, 31 May 2024, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 04:54:45PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > On Fri, 31 May 2024, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 04:00:48PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 08 May 2024, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > First of all, there is no user for the platform data in the kernel.
> > > > > > Second, it needs a lot of updates to follow the modern standards
> > > > > > of the kernel, including proper Device Tree bindings and device
> > > > > > property handling.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > For now, just hide the legacy platform data in the driver's code.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Why not just rip it out entirely?
> > > > 
> > > > You mean the driver?
> > > 
> > > The unused platform data.
> > 
> > Good question. In any case these drivers are non-functional anyway without OOT
> > board code. If we rip out the main platform data completely, the logical following
> > question arises: why do we need the per-device platform data? If we rip that out,
> > we basically make non-functional driver a 100% dead code. Hence what you propose
> > mostly equals to ripping out the drivers completely.
> > 
> > TL;DR: with the main platform data being ripped out the driver code will be in
> > inconsistent state.
> 
> What do you think Johan?  Do you see any reason to keep it around?

FWIW, I just have sent a removal. My main objective here is to get rid of
legacy GPIO APIs. Other than that I don't care if driver will stay or go.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko