linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] c_can_pci: generic module for c

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: <4FD5F7F1.3010602@grandegger.com>
Date:	Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:51:45 +0200
From:	Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>
To:	Alessandro Rubini <rubini@...dd.com>
CC:	alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, federico.vaga@...il.com,
	mkl@...gutronix.de, giancarlo.asnaghi@...com, alan@...ux.intel.com,
	linux-can@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] c_can_pci: generic module for c_can on PCI

On 06/04/2012 06:45 PM, Alessandro Rubini wrote:
>> Anythign wrong with 
>>
>> bool aligned32;
> 
> I personally think booleans are evil.  But both this and the other
> thing:
> 
>>> +static u16 c_can_pci_read_reg_aligned_to_16bit(struct c_can_priv *priv,
>>> +						void *reg)
>>
>> I'm a bit worried this function name might be too short ;)
> 
> come from the platform driver this is based on (I already blamed
> federico offlist for not preserving authorship of the original file).
> 
> So, this file is mostly copied from the platform driver, which is a
> duplication of code.  A mandated duplication, given how the thing
> is currently laid out: the c_can core driver exports functions that
> the other two files are using (the platform and the new pci driver).
> 
> In my opinion, it would be much better to have one less layer and no
> exports at all. The core driver should be a platform driver, and the
> pci driver would just build platform data and register the platform
> device.

Do you have examples for that approach? Not sure yet if it really saves
code and makes it more readable.

> Sure this isn't up to federico, who has the pci device but cannot
> access any boards where the previous driver is used.  What do the
> maintainers think? I (or federico :) may propose a reshaping, if
> the idea makes sense.

I would suggest to provide the c_can_pci driver using the *current* API,
even if it's not optimal. Federicos patch then already looks quite good.
It should use the new register access methods introduced by the D_CAN
support patch, though.

Any further improvements to the device abstraction and a more consistent
handling of the platform data are welcome.

Wolfgang.



--
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/