linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Creating an eeprom 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:	Sun, 20 Jan 2013 14:39:07 -0800
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	Thomas De Schampheleire <patrickdepinguin@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>,
	Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de>,
	Anatolij Gustschin <agust@...x.de>,
	Frodo Looijaard <frodol@....nl>,
	Philip Edelbrock <phil@...roedge.com>,
	Ben Gardner <bgardner@...tec.com>,
	Ronny Meeus <Ronny.Meeus@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Creating an eeprom class

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 07:08:28PM +0100, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
> [plaintext and fixed address of David Brownell]

David passed away a year or so ago, so that's really not going to help :(

> Hi,
> 
> Several of the eeprom drivers that live in drivers/misc/eeprom export
> a binary sysfs file 'eeprom'. If a userspace program or script wants
> to access this file, it needs to know the full path, for example:
> 
> /sys/bus/spi/devices/spi32766.0/eeprom
> 
> The problem with this approach is that it requires knowledge about the
> hardware configuration: is the eeprom on the SPI bus, the I2C bus, or
> maybe memory mapped?
> 
> It would therefore be more interesting to have a bus-agnostic way to
> access this eeprom file, for example:
> /sys/class/eeprom/eeprom0/eeprom
> 
> Maybe it'd be even better to use a more generic class name than
> 'eeprom', since there are several types of eeprom-like devices that
> you could export this way.

Does all of the existing "eeprom" devices use the same userspace
interface?  If so, yes, having a "class" would make sense.

> Or should we rather hook the eeprom code into the mtd subsystem?

Why mtd?

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/