linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: add i2c tree for embedded platforms

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, 26 Jan 2010 16:25:15 +0100
From:	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
To:	Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>
Cc:	Uwe Kleine-Koenig <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
	linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: add i2c tree for embedded platforms

On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:38:30 +0000, Ben Dooks wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 11:10:55AM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 10:20:34 +0100, Uwe Kleine-K??nig wrote:
> > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-K??nig <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
> > > Cc: Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>
> > > ---
> > > Hello,
> > > 
> > > I wonder if it makes sence to split the "I2C SUBSYSTEM" entry into
> > > something like:
> > > 
> > > 	I2C SUBSYSTEM (PC drivers, core)
> > > 	M:	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
> > > 	L:	...
> > > 	W:	...
> > > 	T:	quilt ...
> > > 	S:	...
> > > 	F:	Documentation/i2c/
> > > 	F:	drivers/i2c/
> > > 	F:	include/linux/i2c.h
> > > 	F:	include/linux/i2c-*.h
> > > 
> > > 	I2C SUBSYSTEM (embedded platforms)
> > > 	M:	Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>
> > > 	L:	...
> > > 	W:	...
> > > 	T:	git ...
> > > 	S:	...
> > > 	F:	drivers/i2c/
> > > 	F:	include/linux/i2c-*.h
> > > 
> > > (I'm not entirely sure about the file patterns for the 2nd entry.)
> > 
> > I'm not sure what value it adds, compared to having a single entry as
> > we have today. scripts/get_maintainer.pl will produce the same output,
> > won't it?
> > 
> > This script (and our minds) being directory-driven, I suspect that the
> > only efficient way to split the entries would be to first move all i2c bus
> > driver for embedded platforms to a separate subdirectory. I'm leaving
> > it to Ben and the embedded community to decide whether they want to do
> > that or not.
> 
> I'd much prefer to see just the one directory of i2c drivers, the
> minor point being people silly enough to load modules by explicit path

Never thought of that, but I wouldn't care. There is no good reason to
do this.

> and the second is that having all the drivers in one place makes it
> easier to update them when changing something in the core...

This doesn't seem to be a blocker either. For one thing, i2c
subsystem-wide changes tend to affect chip drivers more than bus
drivers. And even then, looking for drivers in 2 directories doesn't
seem much harder than looking into just one, especially when said 2
directories live next to each other.

So I see no objection to a mass move of all embedded/system i2c bus
drivers to a separate sub-directory.

-- 
Jean Delvare
--
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/