linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] usb: mux: add common code for Intel dual role port mux

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 6 Apr 2016 05:29:50 -0400
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>,
	Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...el.com>,
	Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>,
	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
	Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
	Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
	MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] usb: mux: add common code for Intel dual role
 port mux

On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 01:58:52PM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 03/11/2016 07:57 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 01:39:43PM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2016-03-08 at 15:53 +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
> >>
> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-platform b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-platform
> >>> index 5172a61..a2261cb 100644
> >>> --- a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-platform
> >>> +++ b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-platform
> >>> @@ -18,3 +18,18 @@ Description:
> >>>  		devices to opt-out of driver binding using a driver_override
> >>>  		name such as "none".  Only a single driver may be specified in
> >>>  		the override, there is no support for parsing delimiters.
> >>> +
> >>> +What:		/sys/bus/platform/devices/.../intel_mux
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> is there any reason to call this "intel_mux"? We want a common interface
> >> for such things. So how about "role_mux" or "master_slave_mux"?
> > I agree, don't make this intel specific, as it shouldn't be.
> >
> 
> By the way, do you expect a class for port mux in sysfs?

Why would you create a class?  What is that going to do here?

What happened to getting internal help in designing this api?  This
shouldn't be my job :)

thanks,

greg k-h