netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/4] Define i2c_designware in a header file

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]

Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 18:21:21 -0700
From: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
 Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
 Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
 Jan Dabros <jsd@...ihalf.com>, Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>,
 Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, Jiawen Wu <jiawenwu@...stnetic.com>,
 Mengyuan Lou <mengyuanlou@...-swift.com>,
 "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>,
 Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Duanqiang Wen <duanqiangwen@...-swift.com>,
 "open list:SYNOPSYS DESIGNWARE I2C DRIVER" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
 "open list:WANGXUN ETHERNET DRIVER" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Define i2c_designware in a header file

On 4/23/2024 4:56 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 04:36:18PM -0700, Florian Fainelli kirjoitti:
>> This patch series depends upon the following two patches being applied:
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240422084109.3201-1-duanqiangwen@net-swift.com/
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240422084109.3201-2-duanqiangwen@net-swift.com/
>>
>> There is no reason why each driver should have to repeat the
>> "i2c_designware" string all over the place, because when that happens we
>> see the reverts like the above being necessary.
> 
> Isn't that a part of ABI between drivers, i.e. whenever ones want to
> request_module() or so they need to know what they are doing, no?

Yes, the drivers should know, but as evidenced by the two patches above, 
there was still room for error. If we have to abide by a certain 
contract, which is platform_driver::driver::name, then we might as well 
have a header defining it no?
-- 
Florian

Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (4221 bytes)