linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/2] Extend mmio-mux driver to configure mux with new DT property

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: <2025053121-sterile-doorman-57a0@gregkh>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2025 14:28:51 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: "Vankar, Chintan" <c-vankar@...com>
Cc: Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>,
	s-vadapalli@...com, danishanwar@...com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/2] Extend mmio-mux driver to configure mux with
 new DT property

On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 03:07:14PM +0530, Vankar, Chintan wrote:
> Hello Greg,
> 
> On 5/31/2025 11:22 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 10:35:24PM +0530, Vankar, Chintan wrote:
> > > Hello Greg,
> > > 
> > > I have tried to implement Timesync Router node to the suitable
> > > Subsystems (Interrupt controller and Mux-controller). Thomas
> > > has provided a feedback with a reason why Timesync Router is not
> > > suitable for irqchip. But I didn't get a proper feedback for mux-
> > > controller subsystem.
> > 
> > What do you mean "proper feedback"?
> > 
> 
> By proper feedback, I meant, from the comments I was not able to figure
> out whether Timesync Router will be acceptable in the "mux-controller"
> subsystem or not.

Did you submit a real patch to do so?  Note, I know I do not read "RFC"
patches for the most part as that implies the submitter does not feel it
is ready to be merged, when I have other patches that submitters _do_
feel are ready to be merged that are still left to review.

> > > Can you please help me deciding in which subsystem I should implement
> > > it, if not mux-controller can it go in drivers/misc ?
> > 
> > Why not mux?  What's preventing that from happening?  Why would misc be
> > better?
> > 
> 
> Sure, if mux-controller subsystem is acceptable, I will implement the
> Timesync Router with that and post a series.

Try it and see!  We don't normally do "what if I did this" type of
review, we want to see patches that actually work.

thanks,

greg k-h