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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 7 Jul 2016 10:57:18 -0700
From:	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:	Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.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

On 07/05/2016 06:59 PM, Vivien Didelot wrote:
> 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.

Either way is fine with me really, we can drop this patch, add it later,
not add it, up to you guys. I think the 3 others could go in as they are
pretty self contained, your call David.
-- 
Florian