netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/5] can: enable multi-queue for SocketCAN devices

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 7 Jun 2018 15:20:50 +0000
From:   "Jonas Mark (BT-FIR/ENG1)" <Mark.Jonas@...bosch.com>
To:     Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>,
        Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>,
        Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
CC:     "linux-can@...r.kernel.org" <linux-can@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "hs@...x.de" <hs@...x.de>,
        "ZHU Yi (BT-FIR/ENG1-Zhu)" <Yi.Zhu5@...bosch.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] can: enable multi-queue for SocketCAN devices

Hi Oliver,

> >> Please place the companion driver in
> >>
> >> drivers/net/can/spi/companion.c
> >>
> >> It also makes more sense in the Kconfig structure.
> >>
> >> Probably this naming scheme also makes sense for
> >>
> >> linux/drivers/char/spi/companion.c
> >>
> >> then ...
> >>
> >> If not it should be named at least
> >>
> >> drivers/char/companion-spi.c
> >>
> >> or
> >>
> >> drivers/char/spi-companion.c
> >
> > We intentionally left out the spi in the driver path / name because
> > only the drivers/spi/companion/* driver knows that that it is connected
> > to SPI. The others (drivers/net/can/companion-can.c and
> > drivers/char/companion-char.c) only know the API. This could also be
> > supplied by a driver which talks to the Companion via a different
> > interface. Actually, we started with a UART connection but switched to
> > SPI due to latency issues.
> 
> Ok, got it.
> 
> > Should we still change it?
> 
> At least I would then vote for
> 
> drivers/char/companion.c
> drivers/net/can/companion.c
> 
> instead of
> 
> drivers/char/companion-char.c
> drivers/net/can/companion-can.c

Sounds good, will be changed.

> as you would have companion-users in different driver subsystems that
> are already clearly referenced by their path.
> 
> The modules itself should still be named with companion-can of course
> (as-is right now).
> 
> Btw.
> 
> +#define DRIVER_NAME     "bosch,companion-can"
> 
> +static const struct can_bittiming_const companion_can_bittiming_const = {
> +	.name      = "bosch,companion",
> 
> 
> Is there any reason why it's not only "companion-can" or "companion"?
> The fact that the driver is provided by Bosch is visible in the source code.

Hmm, I guess we mixed up the naming scheme used in devicetree. We will
sleep a night over it and then clean it up. I think the result will be
that the devicetree entry is "bosch,companion-can" and all other uses
are "companion-can".

Greetings,
Mark

Building Technologies, Panel Software Fire (BT-FIR/ENG1) 
Bosch Sicherheitssysteme GmbH | Postfach 11 11 | 85626 Grasbrunn | GERMANY | www.boschsecurity.com

Sitz: Stuttgart, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart HRB 23118 
Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Stefan Hartung; Geschäftsführung: Gert van Iperen, Andreas Bartz, Thomas Quante, Bernhard Schuster