linux-kernel - Re: [Kernel-discuss] Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/4] SoC base drivers

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>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4637AE6D.4090408@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 02 May 2007 01:17:33 +0400
From:	Dmitry Krivoschekov <dmitry.krivoschekov@...il.com>
To:	Paul Sokolovsky <pmiscml@...il.com>
CC:	ian <spyro@....com>, kernel-discuss@...dhelds.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [Kernel-discuss] Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/4] SoC base drivers

Hello Paul,

Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
>> ASIC-related code (I mean core) forms additional platform layer, so I
>> suggest
>> adding ASIC helpers to generic platform code i.e. drivers/platform.c, but
>> ASIC drivers to drivers/asic/ directory.
>
>         There problem here is the same - our target chips are not
> just ASICs. 

You say they are chips so they are integrated circuits (ICs), they
are designed to solve some specific needs, so they are
application-specific ICs, i.e. ASICs, what's the problem?


> It just happens that the one we start with called such,
> but we have different ones too. 

Interesting what are they?
Power management ICs? Power management + audio
+ touchscreen + ADC + USB transceiver + UART + whatever
all such chips may be considered as ASICs.

> It's still important that they contain
> blocks with different functionality, and drivers we propose deal with
> basic, common functionality of chips. 

That different functionality blocks will be handled by appropriate
device drivers, and in general the drivers should not depend on
a particular ASIC but use common ASIC API.
But "common functionality" drivers are ASIC-specific.

> Now that it was pointed out that
> there's place in the tree for such drivers, it would be not wise to
> try to create another one.
>
>
>

Perhaps, so.  Actually, MFD  (multi functional device) doesn't
imply a platform-level device but ASIC seems does.



Thanks,
Dmitry


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/