linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] ASoc: mediatek: mt8365: Don't use "proxy" headers

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: <ed50c130-076c-4697-9f11-fe602c7ca03d@baylibre.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2024 11:29:28 +0100
From: Alexandre Mergnat <amergnat@...libre.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Nicolas Belin <nbelin@...libre.com>,
 linux-sound@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
 Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
 Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>, Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
 AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] ASoc: mediatek: mt8365: Don't use "proxy" headers

Hi Andy

On 25/11/2024 12:50, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 12:32:13PM +0100, Alexandre Mergnat wrote:
>> Hello Andy.
>>
>> Actually, after test it, "linux/of_gpio.h" isn't needed at all anymore.
>>
>> That mean all added include in this patch aren't required.
> Do you mean the driver doesn't not use types from types.h or dev_*() macros
> from dev_printk.h? I don't believe this, sorry.

> 
> Basically what you are trying to say is "let's move of_gpio.h implicit
> includes to become something else's problem". It's not what this patch
> intended to do.

I'm just saying that I've test a build/boot with "linux/of_gpio.h" removed and without all
include added in you patch. My understand is "linux/of_gpio.h" act as proxy
for the includes added in your patch, my first idea was "if I remove it, build should fail cause
of lack of other includes". I can understand these missing includes are mandatory, that
probably means there is another proxy header ?
Maybe my test isn't consistent because it isn't possible to clear all proxy ?

If that's the case, consider my review-by.
I've validated some include manually. Are you using a script to parse the file and raise all 
necessary "linux/*" include ?

-- 
Regards,
Alexandre