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: <20120611142311.GA28682@mail.gnudd.com>
Date:	Mon, 11 Jun 2012 16:23:11 +0200
From:	Alessandro Rubini <rubini@...dd.com>
To:	wg@...ndegger.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

>> 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.

Maybe the physmap mtd driver is a good example. Everybody's using it
(but not from PCI). I found drivers/pcmcia/bcm63xx_pcmcia.c that
registers a platform driver from a pci probe function, but I'm sure
there are other ones.

OTOH, I have another example of how not to do stuff, but I won't point
fingers now (it's not a CAN thing).

I just think the platform bus is there just for this reason: to provide
data to a generic driver, without module dependencies and such stuff. 

> 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.

Great. When it's in I'll show my proposal as an RFC patch, as time permits,
so we'll see if it's better or not.

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

Good to know, thanks a lot

/alessandro
--
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/