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]

Message-ID: <e65fbfb8-1169-46dc-aad9-1dc9dbb91e8f@email.android.com>
Date:	Wed, 11 Apr 2012 07:19:01 +0100
From:	Jonathan Cameron <jic23@....ac.uk>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
CC:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, mingo@...e.hu,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"linux-iio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] x86, intel_mid: ADC management



Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com> wrote:

>On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 08:39:40PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>
>> 1)  Review of code.  This is crucial. If people have a little time
>> ripping holes in the core IIO code is what we need.  Arnd did a good
>job
>> of this a while back. Others have done bits of it since.
>
>> 2) Getting the push code tidied up and pushed out.  I'll post it as
>an
>> updated rfc to linux-iio shortly.  All I had left that definitely
>> wanted doing here was cleaning up the example iio to input bridge
>> driver.  That can happen later.
>
>For these two can we refactor in place?  That's pretty much what seems
>to have been happening anyway...
>
I guess it comes down to whether Linus will pull.  2 should be there within a week or so anyway depending mostly on analog testing I haven't broken any of their drivers.
>> * Event passing to consumers else where in the kernel. Right now an
>> input driver can readings from a sensor, but there is no way of
>> requesting threshold interrupts.
>
>> * Interaction between consumer drivers (e.g. hwmon or input) where
>some
>> are requesting data by polling when they want it and others want a
>
>These sound like something that can be added incrementally?
>
>> > If the code was moved out of staging today what would go wrong?
>
>> Churn in interfaces is probably about it.  Maybe a good use of any
>time
>
>I guess the big question is then if we can live with that.

Agreed.  
>> would be for people to take their non IIO drivers that they think
>might
>> fit (or data sheets!) and see whether there are things that they
>would
>> like to be different.
>
>In tree there's a few auxadc and comparator drivers in drivers/mfd,
>plus
>things like arch/arm/plat-samsung/adc.c in the arch direcories.  These
>are all broadly similar to the at91 code that's been sent to IIO
>already.  There's also the code Alan posted at the top of this thread.
Quite a lot of things in miscellaneous as well to possibly pull in over time.



-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
--
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/