linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] device property: Add scoped fwnode child node iterators

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: <DCJTOIQ4Q0Z5.Q2UE5AQU1X35@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2025 09:03:44 +0200
From: "Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@...nel.org>
To: "Sakari Ailus" <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Jean-François Lessard <jefflessard3@...il.com>,
 "Wolfram Sang" <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>, "Andy Shevchenko"
 <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>, "Daniel Scally" <djrscally@...il.com>,
 "Heikki Krogerus" <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>, "Greg Kroah-Hartman"
 <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
 "Javier Carrasco" <javier.carrasco.cruz@...il.com>,
 <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] device property: Add scoped fwnode child node
 iterators

On Thu Sep 4, 2025 at 7:56 AM CEST, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> Hi Danilo,
>
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 07:22:29PM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
>> (Cc: Javier)
>> 
>> On Wed Sep 3, 2025 at 3:18 PM CEST, Sakari Ailus wrote:
>> > Do we really need the available variant?
>> >
>> > Please see
>> > <URL:https://lore.kernel.org/linux-acpi/Zwj12J5bTNUEnxA0@kekkonen.localdomain/>.
>> >
>> > I'll post a patch to remove fwnode_get_next_available_child_node(), too.
>> 
>> Either I'm missing something substantial or the link does indeed not provide an
>> obvious justification of why you want to send a patch to remove
>> fwnode_get_next_available_child_node().
>> 
>> Do you mean to say that all fwnode backends always return true for
>> device_is_available() and hence the fwnode API should not make this distinction?
>> 
>> I.e. are you referring to the fact that of_fwnode_get_next_child_node() always
>> calls of_get_next_available_child() and swnode has no device_is_available()
>> callback and hence is always available? What about ACPI?
>
> On ACPI there's no such concept on ACPI data nodes so all data nodes are
> considered to be available. So effectively the fwnode_*available*() is
> always the same as the variant without _available().

What about acpi_fwnode_device_is_available()? Is it guaranteed to always
evaluate to true?

If so, to you plan to remove device_is_available() from struct
fwnode_operations and fixup all users of fwnode_get_next_available_child_node()
and fwnode_for_each_available_child_node() as well?