linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] ARM: imx: change mx51.h into mx5x.h

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:	Wed, 20 Oct 2010 06:15:53 -0700
From:	Nguyen Dinh-R00091 <R00091@...escale.com>
To:	Uwe Kleine-König 
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux@....linux.org.uk>, <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
	<grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <daniel@...aq.de>,
	Zhang Lily-R58066 <R58066@...escale.com>,
	<valentin.longchamp@...l.ch>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] ARM: imx: change mx51.h into mx5x.h

Hello Uwe,

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Uwe Kleine-König [mailto:u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 8:09 AM
>To: Nguyen Dinh-R00091; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; linux@....linux.org.uk; s.hauer@...gutronix.de;
>grant.likely@...retlab.ca; linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org; daniel@...aq.de; Zhang Lily-R58066;
>valentin.longchamp@...l.ch
>Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: imx: change mx51.h into mx5x.h
>
>Hello Amit,
>
>On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 02:35:50PM +0300, Amit Kucheria wrote:
>> On 10 Oct 20, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>> > Hello Dinh,
>> >
>> > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 04:57:03PM -0500, Dinh.Nguyen@...escale.com wrote:
>> > > From: Dinh Nguyen <Dinh.Nguyen@...escale.com>
>> > >
>> > > In preparation for submitting i.MX53 support, change mx51.h to
>> > > mx5x.h so that mx5x.h can contain MX53 information as well.
>> > Last time I found time to clean up the imx ports I worked hard that e.g.
>> > mx27 machines only used MX27_ prefixed symbols, not the MX2x_ ones.  (I
>> > don't remember off-hand if I was done, so there might be a few users
>> > left.)
>> >
>> > I'd prefer to just add an mx53.h instead.
>>
>> Perhaps this is a good time to ask the question - Why?
>>
>> mx53.h will duplicate (almost) everything in mx51.h. And any fixes made to
>> mx51.h won't make it to mx53.h
>Yep, that's the pro side of having a single header file for both mx51
>and mx53.  On the negative side we have:
>
> - When changing mx5x.h you always have to check (now) two reference
>   manuals, later maybe more.
> - When Freescale decides to create a (say) mx56 that is totally
>   different, you can be happy not to have constants starting with MX5X.
>   (This happened to the MX2X constants when Freescale created mx25, not
>   to mention mx23 and mx28.)
>
>I admit that *now* it would be easier to just rename mx51.h to mx5x.h,
>but for the long run keeping mx51.h is better, I'm sure.
>
>Best regards
>Uwe

I guess I should also ask this question now. I was planning to add support for mx53 kernel that will be binary compatible with mx51. I'm guessing that you are not in support of that idea?

>
>--
>Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
>Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |

Thanks,
Dinh

--
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/