Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:7 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:7;
Date:   Mon, 20 Nov 2023 09:22:54 -0600
From:   Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@redhat.com>
To:     Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>
Cc:     Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
        Thinh Nguyen <Thinh.Nguyen@synopsys.com>,
        Krishna Kurapati PSSNV <quic_kriskura@quicinc.com>,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] USB: dwc3: qcom: fix resource leaks on probe deferral
Message-ID: <74cswe5tivcctmnty3gfavzsxdvjz5m4rktyj5auzwvrndninm@dah4h2fdj3zv>
References: <20231117173650.21161-1-johan+linaro@kernel.org>
 <041f239f-7b40-4681-8c6c-2268f9c2c684@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <041f239f-7b40-4681-8c6c-2268f9c2c684@linaro.org>
Precedence: bulk

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.
> > 
> > Johan
> 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.
> 
> Konrad
> 

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 :)

Thanks,
Andrew