| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 01:35:08 +0100 From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com> To: Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org> Cc: Clemens Ladisch <clemens@...isch.de>, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, uclinux-dist-devel@...ckfin.uclinux.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: Make firmware drivers generally available On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 02:25:21PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 14:11, Clemens Ladisch wrote: > > "drivers/firmware" is the obvious name for both, but that makes > > it ambiguous. I'd suggest to split the two subsystems into > > "drivers/host-firmware" and "drivers/device-firmware". > i honestly dont see how this is better. the drivers/firmware/ isnt > exactly overflowing, and differentiating between the two modes doesnt > seem to gain us anything. Do we have anything like an actual subsystem in firmware? If we do and it's sensible to do things that affect all firmwares then splitting seems reasonable but if not then it's less clear. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists