linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c-s3c2410: Add bus arbitration implementation

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]

Date:	Tue, 4 Dec 2012 10:45:01 +0530
From:	Naveen Krishna Ch <naveenkrishna.ch@...il.com>
To:	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Cc:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
	Simon Glass <sjg@...omium.org>,
	Naveen Krishna Chatradhi <ch.naveen@...sung.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
	grundler@...omium.org, naveen@...omium.org, w.sang@...gutronix.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c-s3c2410: Add bus arbitration implementation

On 4 December 2012 05:41, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Mark Brown
> <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 10:14:58PM -0800, Olof Johansson wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Simon Glass <sjg@...omium.org> wrote:
>>
>>> > It was originally done separately but I think it was felt that this
>>> > was overly complex. Olof can you please comment on this?
>>
>>> it is indeed not controller specific per se, but we are unaware of any
>>> other platform/driver using it. So, it seemed reasonable to implement
>>> it in the driver as long as we have only one user; if another one
>>> comes along it's of course better to move it to the common i2c code.
>>
>>> At least that was my opinion at the time. I could be convinced
>>> otherwise if someone else has strong opinions on the matter.
>>
>> This sort of approach is half the reason SPI ended up being so fun...  I
>> suspect if you look hard enough you'll find that this is just the first
>> time someone tried to upstream such a scheme.  This is all especially
>> true for the DT bindings, even if the implementation is driver local for
>> now it'd be better to define generic bindings.
>
> Ok, sounds like we might as well make it generic then. Naveen?
Thanks for the comments.

Sure, Will send an RFC soon.
>
>
> -Olof
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



-- 
Shine bright,
(: Nav :)
--
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/