linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] misc: (at24) move header to linux/platform

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 27 Sep 2013 18:32:42 +0200
From:	Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
To:	Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>
Cc:	linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...oirfairelinux.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] misc: (at24) move header to linux/platform_data/

On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 04:09:12PM -0400, Vivien Didelot wrote:
> Hi Wolfram,
> 
> > Wolfram wrote:
> > 
> > > > IMHO it makes sense. Why wouldn't we want all platform_data in
> > > > include/linux/platform_data/?
> > > 
> > > For the same reason we don't want all driver source files in one
> > > directory? It's a mess.
> > 
> > Well, that's different. Not all drivers expose platform data, but
> > many subsystems have drivers with platform data. A common include
> > directory for the *_platform_data structure definitions makes sense.
> 
> Also IMO having such header file in include/linux/i2c/ for a driver
> declared in drivers/misc/eeprom/ is not very consistent.
> So this is the purpose of this include directory. What do you think?

Well, yes, I will apply it if you could rebase it onto v3.12-rc2. I am
unsure about the platform_data dir in general, though. For example, I'd
prefer to have the i2c-* files in the i2c-dir, but this is another
question.

Thanks,

   Wolfram


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)