netdev - Re: [PATCH 04/26] rt2x00: EEPROM 93Cx6

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:	Fri, 8 Dec 2006 21:00:10 -0500
From:	Michael Wu <flamingice@...rmilk.net>
To:	Ivo van Doorn <ivdoorn@...il.com>
Cc:	"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/26] rt2x00: EEPROM 93Cx6

On Friday 08 December 2006 13:56, Ivo van Doorn wrote:
> I have checked the adm80211 code as well, it seems to behave quite the
> same, with the most notable difference the fact that adm80211 writes the
> READ_OPCODE and the word index within a single command, while in
> eeprom_93cx6 this is split into 2 seperate write commands.
> I have not yet tested the exact impact for rt2x00 devices when they would
> combine the write commands, but if that has no impact (or the adm80211
> suffers no impact when the write commands are being split) then rt2x00 and
> adm80211 could indeed share the eeprom_93cx6 module.
Hm, which way is the correct way? (is there a correct way?)

> If eeprom_93cx6 is moved to the /lib folder of the kernel, should it be
> approved by a different maintainer first?
>
I don't think so, but I'm not sure. BTW, I think there can actually be another 
user of this code. Take a look at drivers/scsi/aic7xxx/aic7xxx_93cx6.c

I'm not sure who the maintainer for this is. Should be okay to just have 
adm8211 and rt2x00 using eeprom_93cx6 for now, unless you have a spare 
aic7xxx supported device lying around. ;)

Thanks,
-Michael Wu

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped