netdev - Re: [RFC 03/10] base: swnode: use fwnode_get_match

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: <YhZQ6mZfQeVdNBR2@paasikivi.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 23 Feb 2022 17:21:14 +0200
From:   Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Clément Léger <clement.leger@...tlin.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.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>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>, Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 03/10] base: swnode: use fwnode_get_match_data()

On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 04:15:35PM +0100, Clément Léger wrote:
> Le Wed, 23 Feb 2022 17:05:22 +0200,
> Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com> a écrit :
> 
> > > const void *device_get_match_data(struct device *dev)
> > > {
> > > 	if (!fwnode_has_op(fwnode, device_get_match_data)
> > > 		return fwnode_get_match_data(dev);
> > > 	return fwnode_call_ptr_op(dev_fwnode(dev),device_get_match_data, dev);
> > > }
> > > 
> > > But I thought it was more convenient to do it by setting the
> > > .device_get_match_data field of software_node operations.  
> > 
> > Should this function be called e.g. software_node_get_match_data() instead,
> > as it seems to be specific to software nodes?
> 
> Hi Sakari,
> 
> You are right, since the only user of this function currently is the
> software_node operations, then I should rename it and move it to
> swnode.c maybe.

It might be also fit to be used in OF, based on how it looks like.

But currently the original naming makes it seem an fwnode property API
function and that is misleading. I'd move this to swnode.c now with a new
software node specific name, and rethink the naming matter if there would
seem to be possibilities for code re-use.

-- 
Sakari Ailus