linux-kernel - Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] hwmon class driver registration with a device number

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: <20111006164600.071213e1@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date:	Thu, 6 Oct 2011 16:46:00 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Himanshu Chauhan <hschauhan@...ltrace.org>
Cc:	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
	Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@...csson.com>,
	lm-sensors@...sensors.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] hwmon class driver registration with a
 device number

> AFAIK, the current sysfs interface is to read standard attributes from
> the device. My reasoning is:

and any other attributes.

> 1. This will give hwmon devices to have their "dev" in their sysfs folder
>    as like other classes and in turn be visible in /dev by mdev or udev.

Well there is in theory no reason a device shouldn't do that, but most
sysfs devices don't need to so making it generic seems odd.

> 2. Implementing IOCTL if required. I know that kernel hackers believe
>    they are "backdoors" and "can't be done right" but sometimes there
>    isn't any get away with them. I don't know when their support will
>    be completely removed. Rather, I see that instead of deprecation,
>    new IOCTL vectors like compat_ioctl have been introduced.

Certain things need ioctl, in fact some problems are *very* hard to
solve any other way: transactional updates (changing a set of fields at
once all or none), and query/response data being two.
 
> 2. During probing, for each device, call "hwmon_device_register_numbered"
>    and let mdev create a /dev node for it. I don't say that this interface
>    be imposed on drivers. If they want they can still call "hwmon_device_register"
>    if they don't want to implement standard ioctl, read, write calls.

I guess I don't see why a device that is more than just a monitoring
interface can't allocate a misc device or similar if it needs one.

For the more complex cases take a look at drivers/staging/iio also.
--
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/