linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] at24: Drop of_match_ptr() and ACPI

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: <Z72dfxKzLLORkLl1@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 12:37:51 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>,
	linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] at24: Drop of_match_ptr() and ACPI_PTR()
 protections

On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 11:29:05AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2025, at 11:08, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > These result in a very small reduction in driver size, but at the cost
> > of more complex build and slightly harder to read code. In the case of
> > of_match_ptr() it also prevents use of PRP0001 ACPI based identification.
> > In this particular case we have a valid ACPI/PNP ID that should be used
> > in preference to PRP0001 but doesn't mean we should prevent that route.
> >
> > With this done, drop unneeded of*.h inclusions and __maybe_unused markers.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
> 
> Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>

Thank you!

> For reference, see below for a couple of patches in this area that
> I have sent in the past. Ideally I think we should try to fix these
> all up and enable -Wunused-const-variable, which is useful in its
> own right.

Agree.

> Your patch does not address a warning, but it's still a step
> in that direction.

Yeah, because the original code uses __maybe_unused markers.

...

> Subject: [PATCH] [SUBMITTED 20240403] spi: remove incorrect of_match_ptr
>  annotations

Was it applied (and the rest you provided here)?

To me sounds like a good cleanup that should be applier sooner than later to
move forward of getting rid of of_match_ptr()/ACPI_PTR() completely.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko