linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] mfd: vortex: implement new driver for Vortex southbridges

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: <20250903072117.GY2163762@google.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2025 08:21:17 +0100
From: Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>
To: Marcos Del Sol Vives <marcos@...a.pet>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
	Michael Walle <mwalle@...nel.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] mfd: vortex: implement new driver for Vortex
 southbridges

On Tue, 02 Sep 2025, Marcos Del Sol Vives wrote:

> El 02/09/2025 a las 17:18, Lee Jones escribió:
> >> +
> >> +struct vortex_southbridge {
> >> +	const struct mfd_cell *cells;
> >> +	int n_cells;
> >> +};
> > 
> > Why is this needed?
> > 
> 
> To have a variable amount of cells. Currently I am only implementing the
> GPIO device because it's the most critical (required for device shutdown),
> but I plan on implementing once this gets merged at least also the watchdog,
> which is provided by the same southbridge.
> 
> Adding support for this is should make adding that simpler.

You don't need it.  Please find another way to achieve your goal.

> >> +static const struct mfd_cell vortex_dx_sb_cells[] = {
> >> +	{
> >> +		.name		= "vortex-gpio",
> >> +		.resources	= vortex_dx_gpio_resources,
> >> +		.num_resources	= ARRAY_SIZE(vortex_dx_gpio_resources),
> >> +	},
> >> +};
> > 
> > It's not an MFD until you have more than one device.
> 
> Same as above.

It will not be accepted with only a single device (SFD?).

> >> +static const struct pci_device_id vortex_sb_table[] = {
> >> +	/* Vortex86DX */
> >> +	{ PCI_DEVICE_DATA(RDC, R6031, &vortex_dx_sb) },
> > 
> > We're not passing one initialisation API's data (MFD) through another (PCI).
> 
> Unless I understood you incorrectly, you mean I should not pass MFD cells/
> data as private data?

Right.

> vortex_dx_sb are "struct vortex_southbridge" type, not raw MFD API data.

I like your style, but nope!

vortex_southbridge contains MFD data and shouldn't exist anyway.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]