linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] als: add unique device-ids to the als device class

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:	Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:54:38 +0100
From:	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
To:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
Cc:	Jonathan Cameron <jic23@....ac.uk>,
	Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...durent.com>,
	List Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	rui.zhang@...el.com, alan@...ux.intel.com,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] als: add unique device-ids to the als device class

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:06:46 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 05:19:13PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > > That being said... If we want user-space to know what device is there,
> > > we may want to still let drivers pass a name string to
> > > als_device_register() and let the ALS core create a "name" sysfs
> > > attribute returning the string in question. This would be much lighter
> > > (for individual drivers) than the previous situation, as the string in
> > > question would be a constant (e.g. "TSL2550".) Opinions?
> > > 
> > Makes sense given we want all drivers to support some form of identification.
> > We could do it by stating they will all have that attribute, but given it's constant
> > will save repetition to put it in the driver. Conversely it might complicate the handling
> > of subsequent attribute_groups so I'd probably favour adding relevant documentation lines
> > and leaving it up to the drivers to implement this attribute.
> > 
> > Thus we'd require (within reason) all drivers to have illuminance0 and name.
> 
> Why have a name attribute when you can just use the name of the device
> itself instead?  Isn't that what it is there for?

Can you please clarify what you call "the name of the device"?

Can you also please explain what problem you think we are trying to
solve?

> confused,

Me even more ;)

-- 
Jean Delvare
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/