On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 05:53:10PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote: > On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 09:22:54AM -0600, Andrew Halaney wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 12:47:30AM +0100, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > > > On 17.11.2023 18:36, Johan Hovold wrote: > > > > When reviewing the recently submitted series which reworks the dwc3 qcom > > > > glue implementation [1], I noticed that the driver's tear down handling > > > > is currently broken, something which can lead to memory leaks and > > > > potentially use-after-free issues on probe deferral and on driver > > > > unbind. > > > > > > > > Let's get this sorted before reworking driver. > > > > > > > > Note that the last patch has only been compile tested as I don't have > > > > access to a sdm845 device. > > > > I'll sound like a broken record, but: > > > > > > is there anyone in the world that is actively benefiting from this failed > > > experiment of using the ACPI tables that were shipped with these SoCs? > > > > > > There are so so so many shortcomings associated with it due to how Windows > > > drivers on these platforms know waaaay too much and largely use ACPI to > > > "bind driver x" and I simply think it doesn't make sense to continue > > > carrying this code forward given little use and no testing. > > > For what it is worth, I have agreed with your opinion on this every time > > I've read it. I am not the target audience of the question, but I'll at > > least give my personal (interpreted: uneducated? undesired?) opinion > > that the ACPI support in here adds little value and extra burden. > > > > Of course that topic is a bit independent of this series, but I'd be > > curious if a patchset removing the support would be welcomed or not by > > maintainers, so I'm stirring the pot by replying here :) > > I agree that if we can remove the ACPI hacks in here, we should try do > so (e.g. given that no one really uses it anymore). > > As Andrew already mentioned, that is a separate issue not directly > related to this series, though. > > Removing it before reworking the dwc3 binding [1] and adding multiport > support [2] should simplify both of those series quite a bit, however. > > Johan > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231016-dwc3-refactor-v1-0-ab4a84165470@xxxxxxxxxxx/ > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231007154806.605-1-quic_kriskura@xxxxxxxxxxx/ > So should I apply this series now or not? confused, greg k-h
