linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Add STMicroelectronics LPS001WP pressure sensor device driver into misc

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: <20110314224244.3d6d23ba@endymion.delvare>
Date:	Mon, 14 Mar 2011 22:42:44 +0100
From:	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	Jonathan Cameron <jic23@....ac.uk>,
	mems applications <mems.applications@...com>,
	rdunlap@...otime.net, carmine.iascone@...com, matteo.dameno@...com,
	rubini@...vis.unipv.it, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@...csson.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add STMicroelectronics LPS001WP pressure sensor device
 driver into misc

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 21:36:43 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 14 March 2011 21:18:09 Jean Delvare wrote:
> > Jonathan is correct. Pressure sensors are not hardware monitoring
> > devices, their drivers have nothing to do in drivers/hwmon. This is
> > something for drivers/misc or staging/iio.
> 
> I generally try to prevent people from adding more ad-hoc interfaces
> to drivers/misc. Anything that is called a drivers/misc driver to me
> must qualify as "there can't possibly be a second driver with the
> same semantics", otherwise it should be part of another subsystem
> with clear rules, or be put into its own file system.

I see drivers/misc differently. I see it as "not enough drivers of the
same type to justify a new subsystem". So I encourage people to put
things there in the absence of any suitable subsystem, until someone
gets enough motivation to start such a subsystem. This is more
pragmatic than requesting subsystems to be created upfront.

That being said, staging is another option nowadays.

> While it seems that right now everyone is just trying to keep move
> the driver to some other subsystem, I think it's worth noting that
> it is indeed a useful thing to have the driver, I'm optimistic
> that we can find some place for it. ;-)
> 
> Now how about the IIO stuff? This is the first time I've even
> heard about it. Does it have any major disadvantages besides
> being staging-quality?

This is indeed the major disadvantage. IIO seems to take a lot of time
to move out of staging, although I don't know what the current ETA is.

-- 
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/