linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] eeprom: at24: extend driver to plug into the NVMEM framework

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:	Mon, 17 Aug 2015 15:59:23 +0100
From:	Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
To:	Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
CC:	Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@...e.com>,
	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



On 17/08/15 14:09, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 02:01:24PM +0100, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
>>
>> +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.
>
> The reason for keeping it is backwards compatibility. Having the
> contents of the EEPROM as a file in /sys via this driver is now a part
> of the Linux ABI. You cannot argue it is not an ABI, just because
> there is no framework. Userspace will be assuming it exists at the
> specified location. So we cannot remove it, for existing uses of the
> driver.
Am Ok as long as someone is happy to maintain it.

--srini
>
> However, for new uses of this driver, it is O.K. to only have the
> NVMEM file.
>
>        Andrew
>
--
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/