linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND] x86, intel

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, 10 Apr 2012 14:33:40 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] x86, intel_mid: ADC management

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 02:25:01PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com> wrote:

> > The decision seems fairly settled that general purpose ADCs like this

> It's far lower level than things like IIO. It provides very low level
> services to other drivers not to user space. You could in theory write an
> IIO driver to use the interface but at the moment all the consumers are
> low level hardware drivers and likely to remain so.

Right, but fundamentally it's just a general purpose ADC which looks
just the same as all the other SoC/PMIC ADCs.  Like I say the decision
for that hardware was to push it in via IIO.  If we don't do that we're
just going to be stuck with two subsystems doing very similar things.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)