linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] phy: samsung: move the Samsung specific phy files to "samsung" directory

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, 12 Mar 2017 11:23:59 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To:     Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
        Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@...sung.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kukjin Kim <kgene@...nel.org>, kamil@...as.org,
        Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@...sung.com>,
        Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>,
        inux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] phy: samsung: move the Samsung specific phy files to
 "samsung" directory

On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Vivek Gautam
<vivek.gautam@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> Hi Kishon,
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thursday 09 March 2017 05:03 PM, Jaehoon Chung wrote:
>>> Make the "samsung" directory and move the Samsung specific files to
>>> there for maintaining the files relevant to Samsung.
>>
>> The number of phy drivers in drivers/phy is getting unmanageable. I think this
>> is a good step to make it a little better. Can you also add a MAINTAINER for
>> drivers/phy/samsung?
>
> I remember making a similar attempt in past [1], but that time we couldn't
> reach an agreement as to whether group the phy drivers based on
> vendors or based on the type of phy.
>
> If you are fine with grouping the drivers for each vendor, I hope you can
> consider picking that patch (I can respin the patch based on linux-phy/next).
> Other driver maintainers were also cool with that older patch.
>
> Let me know your comments.
>
> [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8762561/

I am fine with the vendor approach. We follow this also for other
sub-blocks, although usually they are strictly related to one type of
device (e.g. clock controller).

Best regards,
Krzysztof