linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] 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: <aLlsDZrark6u7Eq7@kekkonen.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2025 13:38:05 +0300
From: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>
To: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
	Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
	Jean-François Lessard <jefflessard3@...il.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>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] device property: Add scoped fwnode child node
 iterators

Hi Danilo, others,

On Thu, Sep 04, 2025 at 12:13:53PM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> On Thu Sep 4, 2025 at 11:59 AM CEST, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 04, 2025 at 11:49:25AM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> >> 
> >> > It might be good to have an immutable branch for me from i2c core.
> >> > Wolfram, can you provide a such if no objections?
> >> 
> >> Sure thing, I can do that. But there is still discussion on patch 1, so
> >> I will wait for an outcome there.
> >
> > But it seems that the discussion can be implemented in a followup?
> 
> If Sakari attempts the rework, and we can prove this doesn't regress existing
> users, removing fwnode_for_each_available_child_node_scoped() in the context
> of the rework again should be trivial.

It would perhaps be trivial but in this case I really wouldn't add it in
the first place: it's unused. Either way, feel free to add:

Reviewed-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>

> 
> Given that, I don't see a reason to stall people working with the existing
> semantics of the API in the meantime.

-- 
Regards,

Sakari Ailus