linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] input/keyboard: new OpenCores Keyboard Controller driver

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]

Message-ID: <4AAE8908.1000104@hvsistemas.es>
Date:	Mon, 14 Sep 2009 20:18:48 +0200
From:	Javier Herrero <jherrero@...istemas.es>
To:	Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@...il.com>
CC:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Bryan Wu <cooloney@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] input/keyboard: new OpenCores Keyboard Controller
 	driver

Hello,

It has a bit long since last time I touched the driver, so I should also 
try to refresh my memory about it :). I suppose that you're right in the 
double allocation issue (I took another keyboard driver as a starting 
point and probably the double allocation was already there...), so feel 
free to introduce the change and I will test it as soon as I can.

About the exact scancode - key mapping, the reason is that since the 
FPGA opencores device already implements a translation table, I found 
that another translation table sounded a bit redundant.

Best regards,

Javier

Mike Frysinger escribió:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 13:49, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>> On Monday 14 September 2009 10:40:03 am Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> +struct opencores_kbd {
>>> +     struct input_dev *input;
>>> +     struct resource *addr_res;
>>> +     struct resource *irq_res;
>>> +     unsigned short *keycode;
>>> +};
>> Why do we allocate keycode table separately form the main structure?
>
> the double alloc looked a little funny, but i didnt dive deep into the
> details.  but as you point this out, it seems to make sense to me.
> any problems with that change Javier ?
>
> i.e. we do:
> struct ... { ... unsigned short keycode[NUM_KEYS]; }
> rather than doing two calls to kmalloc
>
>> I think I still have some reservations with the notion that we can just
>> have exact "scancode" - KEY_* mapping and hardware producers will adjust
>> the hardware to follow the deriver but I guess it's OK...
>
> considering this is a piece of "hardware" implemented in FPGAs, i
> think it's ok too.  if someone really needs more flexibility, then
> they're free to extend the driver and submit a patch :).
> -mike
>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Javier Herrero                            EMAIL: jherrero@...istemas.com
HV Sistemas S.L.                          PHONE:         +34 949 336 806
Los Charcones, 17A                        FAX:           +34 949 336 792
19170 El Casar - Guadalajara - Spain      WEB: http://www.hvsistemas.com

--
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/