linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] platform/x86: Use i2c adapter name to fix build errors

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: <46a1ad3e-3419-4f03-b5ce-a36d2480037c@amd.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2025 23:35:56 -0400
From: "Nirujogi, Pratap" <pnirujog@....com>
To: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>,
 Pratap Nirujogi <pratap.nirujogi@....com>
Cc: rdunlap@...radead.org, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
 sfr@...b.auug.org.au, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
 platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 benjamin.chan@....com, bin.du@....com, gjorgji.rosikopulos@....com,
 king.li@....com, dantony@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] platform/x86: Use i2c adapter name to fix build
 errors

Hi Ilpo,

On 5/31/2025 1:11 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
> 
> 
> On Fri, 30 May 2025, Pratap Nirujogi wrote:
> 
>> Use 'adapater->name' inplace of 'adapter->owner->name' to fix build issues
>> when CONFIG_MODULES is not defined.
>>
>> Fixes: 90b85567e457 ("platform/x86: Add AMD ISP platform config for OV05C10")
> 
> This is the which should have this Fixes tag, the other commits should not
> have it as they're not really the fix (but this change just depends on
> them, but since stable is not in picture yet for this driver we don't
> need to indicate even those deps).
> 
Thank you, I will take care of keeping the Fixes tag only in the 
x86/platform driver patch and will remove in the other two i2c driver 
patches.

Sorry I think I'm not completely clear on this statement "we don't need 
to indicate even those deps" - Am I good if I submit the same patch 
series removing the Fixes tag from the two i2c driver patches? Or Is it 
about submitting the i2c patches independently from x86/platform, 
instead of keeping all the 3 patches in a single series. Can you please 
help to clarify?

>> Reported-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/04577a46-9add-420c-b181-29bad582026d@infradead.org
>> Signed-off-by: Pratap Nirujogi <pratap.nirujogi@....com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/platform/x86/amd/amd_isp4.c | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/amd/amd_isp4.c b/drivers/platform/x86/amd/amd_isp4.c
>> index 0cc01441bcbb..80b57b58621a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/amd/amd_isp4.c
>> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/amd/amd_isp4.c
>> @@ -151,7 +151,7 @@ MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, amdisp_sensor_ids);
>>
>>   static inline bool is_isp_i2c_adapter(struct i2c_adapter *adap)
>>   {
>> -     return !strcmp(adap->owner->name, "i2c_designware_amdisp");
>> +     return !strcmp(adap->name, "AMDISP DesignWare I2C adapter");
> 
> Since both are in-kernel code, share that name through a define in some
> header.
>
sure, I will find the header file that can be used to add the adap->name 
definition.

Thanks,
Pratap

> --
>   i.
>