| 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: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 14:01:24 +0100 From: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org> To: Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@...e.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, wsa@...-dreams.de, Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] eeprom: at24: extend driver to plug into the NVMEM framework +Adding Maxime in the loop On 16/08/15 16:37, Stefan Wahren wrote: >> >Another question which spring to mind is, do we want the eeprom to be >> >in /sys twice, the old and the new way? Backwards compatibility says >> >the old must stay. Do we want a way to suppress the new? Or should we >> >be going as far as refractoring the code into a core library, and two >> >wrapper drivers, old and new? > I think these are questions for the framework maintainers. > One of the reasons for the NVMEM framework is to remove that duplicate code in the every driver. There was no framework/ABI which was guiding such old eeprom sysfs entry in first place, so I dont see an issue in removing it for good. Correct me if am wrong. IMHO, its better to move on with nvmem for good reasons, rather than having two sysfs binary files. --srini -- 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