linux-kernel - Re: Questions about NVMEM

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, 11 Sep 2017 04:24:21 -0700
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
Cc:     Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@...aro.org>,
        Keiji Hayashibara <hayashibara.keiji@...ionext.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew-CT Chen <andrew-ct.chen@...iatek.com>,
        Carlo Caione <carlo@...lessm.com>,
        Michael Grzeschik <m.grzeschik@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: Questions about NVMEM

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 07:33:20PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> >> (Q3) The style of  drivers/nvmem/Makefile
> >>
> >> This Makefile looks ugly to me.
> >> All nvmem drivers are just single file modules.
> >> Why are they renamed when modules are created?
> >>
> >> For the name-space reason for modules,
> >> prefix "nvmem-" makes sense to me.
> >>
> >> It is true that adding "nvmem-" prefix is redundant while
> >> they are located in drivers/nvmem/ directory,
> >> but renaming in the Makefile is even more annoying to me.
> >> Having said that, we may not want to churn this.
> >
> > This is mainly done for consistent module naming.
> > I prefer to have nvmem- prefix for nvmem modules.
> >
> 
> I 100% agree that all nvmem modules should have "nvmem-" prefix
> consistently.
> 
> My question was, why .c files do not have the same file name as
> the module name?
> 
> The more straight-forward way would be:
> drivers/nvmem/nvmem_core.c
> drivers/nvmem/nvmem-bcm-ocotp.c
> drivers/nvmem/nvmem-imx-iim.c
> etc.

No, the way the current code is, is just fine, please leave it alone, it
is the style that other subsystems are moving to as well.

thanks,

greg k-h