linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] mfd: intel_ehl_pse_gpio: Introduce Intel Elkhart Lake PSE GPIO and TIO

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2025032609-query-limit-491b@gregkh>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 09:50:19 -0400
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@...el.com>, Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>,
	giometti@...eenne.com, raymond.tan@...el.com,
	linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] mfd: intel_ehl_pse_gpio: Introduce Intel Elkhart
 Lake PSE GPIO and TIO

On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 11:01:52AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 08:45:29PM -0400, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 03:22:36PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 06:04:38AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 07:28:22AM +0200, Raag Jadav wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 01:57:35PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, 14 Mar 2025, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> > > > > > Also, Greg has been quite vocal about converting PCI devices to Platform
> > > > > > ones in the past.  We may wish to run this past him before continuing.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Greg, any objections on moving forward with platform device?
> > > > 
> > > > I have no context here at all, why would a PCI device EVER be a platform
> > > > device?  That feels wrong on so many levels...
> > > 
> > > It's a multi-functional device, in other words that device provides a set of
> > > (dependent or independent) subdevices. But do you have other suggestion?
> > > The auxiliary bus?
> > 
> > Yes, that is exactly what the auxiliary bus code was designed and
> > written for.
> 
> Lee, what do you think of extending mfd to cover this case, i.e. specifically
> for the PCI devices? Or maybe it makes sense to go to the auxiliary bus
> completely (I think this may break a lot of things on legacy systems, though).

Don't change existing drivers, only do it for new ones please.