netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC] c_can_pci: generic module for c

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:	Tue, 5 Jun 2012 18:50:09 +0200
From:	Alessandro Rubini <rubini@...dd.com>
To:	anilkumar@...com
Cc:	mkl@...gutronix.de, bhupesh.sharma@...com, federico.vaga@...il.com,
	alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, wg@...ndegger.com,
	giancarlo.asnaghi@...com, alan@...ux.intel.com,
	linux-can@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] c_can_pci: generic module for c_can on PCI

> I am late to the discussion, is there any specific reason to maintain a
> separate platform file (c_can_pci.c).

Because it depends on pci and ifdef is bad.

> I think 90% of the code is copied from c_can_paltform.c, code
> changes will be less if you merge to existing c_can platform driver.

Yes, but then we need to ifdef around, which merges two bad files
into a single but worse file.

But since the only current user of c_can is the platform device, why
not merging the platform with the core and having pci just register a
platform device?  The only problem I see is that we need cooperation,
because neither me nor federico have a c_can equipped board besides
the pci one.

thanks
/alessandro
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html