netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/4] net: dsa: Suffix function manipulating device_node with

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: <87a8hvv85y.fsf@ketchup.mtl.sfl>
Date:	Tue, 05 Jul 2016 21:59:05 -0400
From:	Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>
To:	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/4] net: dsa: Suffix function manipulating device_node with _dn

Hi,

Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com> writes:

> On 07/05/2016 03:36 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 03:07:12PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>> Make it clear that these functions take a device_node structure pointer
>> 
>> Hi Florian
>> 
>> Didn't we agree that we would only support a single device via a C
>> coded platform data structure?
>
> That is true for the devices I know about, both in and out of tree,
> however, while discussing offline with Vivien it seemed like there was a
> potential need for having a x86-based platform which could need that,
> Vivien do you think this platform could be in-tree one day (if not already)?

This customer platform is not mainlined yet and I cannot say today if it
will be. However it is likely to get a new revision soon with 3
interconnected 6352 hanging the x86 Baytrail.

DT on x86 is possible, but not straight-forward, and thanks to Florian's
work the pdata support is almost there for free.

>> All the functions you are renaming will never be called in that
>> case. So i think they can retain there names. You have no need to add
>> none device node equivalents.
>> 
>> So lets drop this patch.

The patch is not big and I think it doesn't hurt to add that explicit
suffix, I'd keep the patch in the series.

Thanks,

        Vivien