linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] extcon : callback function to read cable property

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: <1349963260.8329.1.camel@anish-Inspiron-N5050>
Date:	Thu, 11 Oct 2012 22:47:40 +0900
From:	anish kumar <anish198519851985@...il.com>
To:	"Tc, Jenny" <jenny.tc@...el.com>
Cc:	"myungjoo.ham@...sung.com" <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>,
	"cw00.choi@...sung.com" <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] extcon : callback function to read cable property

On Thu, 2012-10-11 at 01:20 +0000, Tc, Jenny wrote:
> > From: anish kumar [mailto:anish198519851985@...il.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 8:15 PM
> > To: Tc, Jenny
> > Cc: myungjoo.ham@...sung.com; cw00.choi@...sung.com; linux-
> > kernel@...r.kernel.org
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] extcon : callback function to read cable property
> > 
> > I think the reason why we have extcon is in first place is to only notify the
> > clients of cable connection and disconnection and it is up to the client to
> > decide what else to do with the cable such as finding which state it is in and
> > other details.
> > So I feel this should not be handled in the extcon.
> > 
> > However it is up to the maintainer to decide.
> 
> Once the consumer gets the notification, it needs to take some action. 
> One of the action is to read the cable properties. This can be done 
> by proprietary calls which is known both to the consumer and the provider. 
> My intention is to avoid this proprietary calls. Since both the provider 
> and consumer are communicating with the extcon subsystem , I feel having a 
> callback function of this kind would help to avoid the use of proprietary 
> calls. Also I agree that extcon notifier chains are used to notify the cable 
> state (attach/detach). But if a cable has more than two states (like the 
> charger cable) how do we support it without having a callback function like this? 
> Let the maintainer take the final decision.
Well this use case will keep on growing if we start factor in this kind
of changes and that is why I am opposed to adding any other state.
Maintainer?
> 
> 


--
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/