linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 2/7] spi: microchip-core: Make use of device properties

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: <aSafnlEbZt-yFzbv@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2025 08:35:10 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>,
	Prajna Rajendra Kumar <prajna.rajendrakumar@...rochip.com>,
	linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/7] spi: microchip-core: Make use of device properties

On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:19:22PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:00:48PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 10:42:12PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 09:15:32PM +0100, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > Convert the module to be property provider agnostic and allow
> > > > it to be used on non-OF platforms.
> 
> > > Are we sure that these properties are tasteful and sensible on an ACPI
> > > system?
> 
> > If you're on an ACPI platform, you're probably not using this IP.

OK.

> > It's
> > really old and in need of an update (like what the "hard" version of
> > it got), we just happened to have some customers that wanted more SPI
> > controllers on the FPGA. I dunno if using these provider agnostic APIs
> > is something we should be doing where possible as good practise, but if
> > it's to make the IP more broadly usable I'd say that that's mostly
> > wasted effort.

See below.

> I really don't think it's a good idea to just do it as a thoughtless
> default given that there are cases where we actively want a different
> interface on ACPI or don't want to see a device used at all.

Okay,I think the commit message is a bit misleading. There are two ideas behind
this change, one is to have agnostic APIs in use, second one to make code
shorter and cleaner. Assuming we are targeting the second one as a main point,
does this make sense?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko