linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 0/4] gpiolib: acpi: Split quirks to its own file

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: <20250515084727.GU88033@black.fi.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 11:47:27 +0300
From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
	Mika Westerberg <westeri@...nel.org>,
	Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/4] gpiolib: acpi: Split quirks to its own file

On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 11:41:59AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 11:34:51AM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 11:04:22AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 06:59:55PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > > > On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 01:00:30PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > The GPIO ACPI helpers use a few quirks which consumes approximately 20%
> > > > > of the file. Besides that the necessary bits are sparse and being directly
> > > > > referred. Split them to a separate file. There is no functional change.
> > > > > 
> > > > > For the new file I used the Hans' authorship of Hans as he the author of
> > > > > all those bits (expect very tiny changes made by this series).
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hans, please check if it's okay and confirm, or suggest better alternative.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Andy Shevchenko (4):
> > > > >   gpiolib: acpi: Switch to use enum in acpi_gpio_in_ignore_list()
> > > > >   gpiolib: acpi: Handle deferred list via new API
> > > > >   gpiolib: acpi: Add acpi_gpio_need_run_edge_events_on_boot() getter
> > > > >   gpiolib: acpi: Move quirks to a separate file
> > > > > 
> > > > >  drivers/gpio/Makefile                         |   1 +
> > > > >  .../{gpiolib-acpi.c => gpiolib-acpi-core.c}   | 344 +----------------
> > > > >  drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi-quirks.c            | 363 ++++++++++++++++++
> > > > >  drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.h                   |  15 +
> > > > 
> > > > All this -foo-core things look redundant to me. Why not just split it out
> > > > and call it gpiolib-quirks.c and put there all the quirks not just ACPI? I
> > > > Don't think we want to have gpiolib-of-quirks.c and gpiolog-swnode-quirks.c
> > > > and so on.
> > > 
> > > That's might be the next step to have for all of them, but these are ACPI
> > > specific. In any case they can't be put to gpiolib-quirks.c due to module
> > > parameters. If we do that we will need a dirty hack to support old module
> > > parameters (see 8250 how it's done there, and even author of that didn't like
> > > the approach).
> > 
> > Hmm, how does it affect module paremeters? I thought they are
> > gpiolib.something as all these object files are linked to it?
> 
> gpiolib_acpi.FOO because the object file is gpiolib-acpi.o.

Ah okay.

> > At least can we drop the gpiolib-acpi-core.c rename?
> 
> Unfortunately no due to the above.

This does not work?

gpiolib-acpi-y                 := gpiolib-acpi.o gpiolib-acpi-quirks.o