linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Add STMicroelectronics LPS001WP pressure sensor device driver into misc

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, 15 Mar 2011 14:38:41 +0000
From:	Jonathan Cameron <jic23@....ac.uk>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
CC:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
	mems applications <mems.applications@...com>,
	rdunlap@...otime.net, carmine.iascone@...com, matteo.dameno@...com,
	rubini@...vis.unipv.it, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@...csson.com>,
	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	"linux-iio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add STMicroelectronics LPS001WP pressure sensor device
 driver into misc

On 03/15/11 12:51, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:11:00AM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>> On 03/15/11 09:38, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> 
> [Reflowed Jonathan's text into 80 columns for legibility.]
> 
>>> Do you think it would help to split the iio codebase into a smaller part
>>> for the relatively clean drivers that can be put into shape for
>>> drivers/iio, and the bulk of the code that stays in staging for a bit
>>> longer, until it gets converted to the new one in small chunks?
> 
>> 1) Spit functionality out in staging. This would give a core set that
>> is basically the sysfs only stuff.  To do that we'd have to define a
>> struct iio_dev_basic and make it an element of the iio_dev.  Prior to
>> that we'd probably need to make pretty much all accesses into iio_dev
>> via macros / inline functions which would not be a trivial
>> undertaking.
> 
>> Then we could switch those drivers doing the minimum to the _basic
>> form.  At that point we could perhaps attempt to move a couple of
>> drivers and the abi docs out of staging.
> 
>> The disadvantages of this that come to mind are: * Makes the path to
>> driver addition that I'd prefer trickier.  You write a basic sysfs
>> only driver first, then add on stuff like events and buffering as
>> separate patches. We could go the other way around like v4l2-subdev
>> and have a base structure with the option of pointers to structures
>> offering different combinations of features.  * Not many of the
>> drivers I'd consider to be ready to go at the moment are actually in
>> this _basic class. 
> 
> For what it's worth I have a few drivers I'd like to do which fall into
> this category.  I've been put off working on them by the fact that I'm
> not seeing a route out of staging for the subsystem.
> 
>> 2) Basically make a copy.  This would look like the original patch set did when we went
> 
> A third option is just to lift everything out of staging roughly as it
> is now with anything that definitely needs redoing dropped, addressing
> any review comments for mainline but not doing much else, and then
> resume working on adding additional stuff.  It sounds like the userspace
> interfaces that are there at present are mostly OK and most of the
> issues are in-kernel?
Mostly, though I suspect our events interface will cause some 'discussion'
and that sits one step above the absolute minimum driver.

Right now I want to push out the rewrite of the triggers, then I'll start
putting together a patch set to try and move some stuff over and see how
well things break up.



--
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/