linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] i2c: core: Move client towards fwnode

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: <Z_PDuilyIYM_3STr@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2025 15:23:22 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...asonboard.com>
Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
	linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] i2c: core: Move client towards fwnode

On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 02:34:48PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 07/04/2025 12:55, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > The struct i2c_board_info has of_node and fwnode members. This is
> > quite confusing as they are of the same semantics and it's tend
> > to have an issue if user assigns both. Luckily there is only a
> > single driver that does this and fix was sent today. Nevertheless
> > the series moves the client handling code to use fwnode and deprecates
> > the of_node member in the respective documentation.
> > 
> > Tomi, can you test this series + the patch we discussed earlier so it works as
> > expected?
> 
> I tested this series, and then tested this series + "[PATCH v1 1/1] media:
> i2c: ds90ub960: Remove of_node assignment". I didn't see anything amiss in
> either case.
> 
> Tested-by: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...asonboard.com>

Thank you very much for the testing!

> I assume the ds90ub960 patch is the "single driver that does this and fix
> was sent today"? If so, I think that patch could have been included in this
> series as well, there's hardly a chance of conflicts with the one liner. And
> if applied separately, we probably need to apply the ub960 patch one kernel
> version later than this series.

Yeah, I forgot to update the cover letter to point to that one out.
I agree on everything you said above. But let's wait a bit for Wolfram
to comment on / apply this first. It would be nice to have it in, so
we prevent new ambiguous users from appearing.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko