linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] i2c: designware: Combine some of the common functions

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: <aW4vKo0kROZaPsMp@kuha>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2026 15:18:34 +0200
From: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>,
	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jan Dabros <jsd@...ihalf.com>, Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@...el.com>,
	linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] i2c: designware: Combine some of the common
 functions

Tue, Dec 30, 2025 at 04:14:32PM +0200, Heikki Krogerus kirjoitti:
> Hi Andy,
> 
> > > -	snprintf(adap->name, sizeof(adap->name),
> > > -		 "Synopsys DesignWare I2C Slave adapter");
> > 
> > This patch changes the user visible strings (via `i2cdetect`) or module names
> > in case we want to find it by name (note, we already have such precedents for
> > other adapters). Currently we have three variants if I not miss anything:
> > Generic for master (as in this change), Generic for slave, and AMD platform
> > driver case. If you think this is okay change, then just drop the AMD case
> > as well, and hence remove the no more needed conditional. Otherwise I would
> > somehow group this naming in one place, if possible.
> 
> The only thing that this will change is, it removes the common
> slave/target only description, because after this that setup is no
> longer possible - master mode is now always supported. So this is the
> correct thing to do.
> 
> I don't think the user space should ever rely on a description like
> this except possibly with some customised/non-common systems that the
> user space really has to handle in some specific way, but if something
> really did rely on this common "target only" description, it could
> have only used it to determine that it basically can't use the device
> for anything as it's slave/target only - so basically to use it to
> check the functionality (same as i2cdetect -F). But as said, this is
> no longer a problem.
> 
> As for the AMD case, if I understood what you are proposing, I
> disagree with you. The glue drivers should always be allowed to assign
> the name (these would be the "non-common" systems that the user space
> may actually need to know about). I'm also against grouping the
> naming. The glue drivers must handle the platform specifics including
> the naming if needed, not the core.

Ping.

-- 
heikki