linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] regulator: dummy: convert to use the faux bus

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: <2025020313-constant-ravishing-1506@gregkh>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2025 16:46:02 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, Lyude Paul <lyude@...hat.com>,
	Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>,
	Maíra Canal <mairacanal@...eup.net>,
	Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
	Simona Vetter <simona.vetter@...ll.ch>,
	Zijun Hu <quic_zijuhu@...cinc.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] regulator: dummy: convert to use the faux bus

On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 03:39:06PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 03:25:18PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > The dummy regulator driver does not need to create a platform device, it
> > only did so because it was simple to do.  Change it over to use the
> > faux bus instead as this is NOT a real platform device, and it makes
> > the code even smaller than before.
> 
> No, they did this because you explicitly asked that this be done....

I did?  What was it attempting to be before this?  I don't remember that
at all, sorry.

> > -static int dummy_regulator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +static int dummy_regulator_probe(struct faux_device *vdev)
> 
> Just dev or fdev - we could just pass a struct device in here, we don't
> actually care that it's a platform device at this point.  Having the
> abbreviation mismatch with the device type is odd.

Ah, that's a mistake from my first pass when this was a "struct
virtual_device" and I called this "vdev".  I'll go fix that up, thanks.

greg k-h