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: <Z0Xn1fMvuwR4KQbb@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2024 17:23:01 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Alexandre Mergnat <amergnat@...libre.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

On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 11:37:26AM +0100, Alexandre Mergnat wrote:
> On 26/11/2024 11:29, Alexandre Mergnat wrote:
> > On 25/11/2024 12:50, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 12:32:13PM +0100, Alexandre Mergnat wrote:

...

> > > > 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.

> Reviewed-by: Alexandre Mergnat <amergnat@...libre.com>

Thank you!
Mark, would be enough to apply the change?

> > I've validated some include manually. Are you using a script to parse
> > the file and raise all necessary "linux/*" include ?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko