| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <AANLkTikLJyr6PREZX-OwOBwMK8uTC2YEu-KHHy0MYFJJ@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 21:17:02 +0100 From: Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@...il.com> To: pavan_savoy@...com Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: shared transport: only for TI chips? Hi Pavan, I've been looking closely at the shared transport implementation to figure out how applicable it is for similar solutions from other vendors. My current impression is, this the applicability is very poor. For instance, you define the firmware name by querying the chip in a specific manner. Also, your implementation presumes the chip implements LL protocol for Bluetooth power saving which might not at all be the case for other vendors' chips. That's kind of okay as long as you don't care about power saving; but if you have to support some other power saving protocol, you're screwed -- there's no such opportunity in the current ST core. So the question is, are you at all interested in making the core generic? I'm ready to come up with some ideas on that if the answer is positive :) And if not, we need to consider bringing in something more generic as there already are several vendors that use Bluetooth for command encapsulation on similar multi-functional chips. Thanks, Vitaly -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists