linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] IIO ADC support for AD7923

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: <50FA96E0.2040604@kernel.org>
Date:	Sat, 19 Jan 2013 12:51:44 +0000
From:	Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To:	"Getz, Robin" <robin.getz@...log.com>
CC:	Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
	Alessandro Rubini <rubini@...dd.com>,
	"greg@...ah.com" <greg@...ah.com>,
	"christophe.leroy@....fr" <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
	"jic23@....ac.uk" <jic23@....ac.uk>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-iio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
	"patrick.vasseur@....fr" <patrick.vasseur@....fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IIO ADC support for AD7923

On 01/18/2013 11:02 PM, Getz, Robin wrote:
> On Thu 17 Jan 2013 12:36, Lars-Peter Clausen pondered:
>> On 01/17/2013 06:11 PM, Alessandro Rubini wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> But yes, you are right. I'm working on another I/O subsystem. We are
>>> gong to release zio-1.0 in a few days, because the thing is mature
>>> and used in production.
> 
> Neither means it's a good idea for upstream :)
> 
>> Still it's a very bad idea to have two subsystem which have a huge overlap
>> in both functionality and targeted devices. It will gives us all lots of
>> headaches later on. As IIO continues to evolve it will get support for some
>> of the features that only ZIO supports at the moment and as ZIO grows it
>> will get support for features currently only supported by IIO. So in the
>> end we have two frameworks for the very same purpose.
> 
> I want to strongly agree with Lars-Peter. Lets work together on one thing - 
> which tries to solve all the our system level issues. As an end user - I 
> don't want to re-write userspace for multiple interfaces to the same 
> underlying ADC/DACs.
> 
> I don't know how Greg feels about another subsystem in the kernel which 
> duplicates existing functionality/targetted devices - but it doesn't sound 
> like a good idea to me.
> 
>>> I hope to meet you in person at fosdem and be able to talk over a beer
>>> or two.
>>
>> Looking forward to meeting you :)
> 
> Hopefully you can come to some logical conclusions over a friendly beverage. 
> Even if you can't decide on how to merge things (plan for adding missing 
> features from one to the other), maybe it's just deciding on how to get as 
> much reuse as possible (duplication of device register and bit definitions?)
> 

I second these comments from Lars and Robin (or third I suppose ;).
Lets get the best possible result. The source of an idea or code
really doesn't matter in the long run, what matters is that we
get a solution that works well for all users.

Enjoy those beverages (and fosdem of course!)

Jonathan
--
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/