linux-kernel - Re: Patch for MSP430 support on Neuros OSD2 board

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: <4B13682D.4030202@gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:37:33 +0500
From:	"Andrey A. Porodko" <andrey.porodko@...il.com>
To:	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>
CC:	"A. Porodko" <panda@...lcom.ru>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
	David Brownell <dbrownell@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
	Balaji Rao <balajirrao@...nmoko.org>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Patch for MSP430 support on Neuros OSD2 board

Samuel Ortiz wrote:

Hi Samuel,

The reason I used "ifdef" instead of refactoring code is that I don't
have dm355 board to check nor I'm familiar with this hardware and I was
afraid to screw up what's already done for dm355.
Initially I created a completely separate driver (although based on
dm355) for Neuros, but kernel people told me to combine code with existent.
- Is it possible to find someone with dm355 hardware to check if didn't
screw up it?
- I don't quite understand how to evaluate impact on config_* files, do
you mean I need to check standard kernel configuration files bundled
with kernel and make necessary adjustments there?

Thank you for a quick reply.
> Hi Andrey,
>
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 06:17:22PM +0500, Andrey A. Porodko wrote:
>   
>> Hello,
>>
>> Here is a patch for MSP430 chip support for Neuros OSD2 (Davinci DM6446
>> based) board.
>> Patch made against 2.6.32-rc6 kernel.
>>     
> Thanks for the patch, here are some comments about it:
>
> - Renaming a file may be acceptable, but you have to delete the prvious one.
> Also, as you're changing the Kconfig symbol, you should evaluate the impact on
> the current users (in config_* files for example).
>
> - Then about the code itself: ifdefs as the one you're doing here is not
> exactly nice, and leads to a lot of code replication and maintenance burden.
> It seems that you're trying to have a common MSP430 driver support for 2
> different boards, which is a good idea. The main problem, if I understand it
> correctly, is those 2 boards are running the same MSP430 HW running different
> FWs.
> What I'd really like to see here would be to have a generic MSP430 support.
> You'd need to define a FW definition structure (it seems it would mostly be
> GPIO settings), then have different static definitions for every known firmware
> revision, and finally have a common probe routine that would go through this
> firmware structure and sets thing accordingly. You would pass the firmware
> revision you're using from your board definitions, unless there are some
> registers on that chip that would let us know about this firmware.
>
> Cheers,
> Samuel.
>
>
>   


-- 
Best regards
Andrey A. Porodko
 

--
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/