linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] PCI/pwrctrl: Skip creating platform device unless CONFIG_PCI

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: <fab224f5-fa6f-4df0-8b43-4f296e554f8f@broadcom.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:06:03 -0700
From: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
 Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
Cc: Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
 Cyril Brulebois <kibi@...ian.org>, Nicolas Saenz Julienne
 <nsaenz@...nel.org>, Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
 Krzysztof Wilczy??ski <kwilczynski@...nel.org>,
 Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>, Jim Quinlan
 <james.quinlan@...adcom.com>, bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI/pwrctrl: Skip creating platform device unless
 CONFIG_PCI_PWRCTL enabled

On 5/27/25 15:25, 'Bjorn Helgaas' via BCM-KERNEL-FEEDBACK-LIST,PDL wrote:
> On Sat, May 24, 2025 at 02:21:04PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
>> On Sat, May 24, 2025 at 08:29:46AM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 09:42:07PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>>> What I would prefer is something like the first paragraph in that
>>>> section: the #ifdef in a header file that declares the function and
>>>> defines a no-op stub, with the implementation in some pwrctrl file.
>>>
>>> pci_pwrctrl_create_device() is static, but it is possible to #ifdef
>>> the whole function in the .c file and provide the stub in an #else
>>> branch.  That's easier to follow than #ifdef'ing portions of the
>>> function.
>>>
>>
>> +1
> 
> I dropped the ball here and didn't get any fix for this in v6.15.

Any chance we could target a fix to be back ported into 6.15 stable? Do 
you need people to help you test it?
-- 
Florian