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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20120412180416.GC18049@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 Apr 2012 19:04:17 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To:	Jonathan Cameron <jic23@....ac.uk>
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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] x86, intel_mid: ADC management

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:19:04PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On 4/11/2012 12:13 PM, Alan Cox wrote:

> >Your simple IIO examples would just use the ADC abstraction, your complex
> >IIO examples would use the ADC abstraction *and* layer it with IIO level
> >code that is mixing it with all the other needed work.

> I suspect you'll end up adding more and more to your adc abstraction
> till you actually
> end up with most of IIO.  That's effectively what we did...   It's
> big because there are
> actually not that many 'simple' adc's out there.

I tend to agree here - I think if we try to establish a strict
separation between the simple and complex abstractions it'd cause more
problems than it will solve trying to split things, and from a hardware
driver level it helps if there's just one upper layer.

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