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: <52535151.2000508@codeaurora.org>
Date:	Mon, 07 Oct 2013 17:26:57 -0700
From:	Rohit Vaswani <rvaswani@...eaurora.org>
To:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
CC:	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: Use of drivers/platform and matching include?

On 10/5/2013 10:13 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 09:48:41AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 6:22 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
>> <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 12:41:28PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>>> So, no, there will be no new drivers under arch/arm.  They must be in the
>>>> drivers subtree somewhere.
>>> I have no objection with this, and encourage it.
>> Ok, so these are some of the requirements as far as I see it:
>>
>> * No per-vendor driver dumping ground under drivers/* (i.e. no
>> drivers/platform/<soc vendor>/)
> Yes.

We agree that there is no need for a dump *all* drivers under 
arm/mach-foo in drivers/platform/foo/. The msm bus driver would be added 
under drivers/bus/. But, we still have some drivers which are quite SoC 
specific and not in the general category of the sub-directories present 
under drivers.
As Kumar mentioned earlier -

An example driver would be the means we utilize to communicate memory regions between various HW blocks on the SoC.  So a video/media core driver might need access to a header/functions from the memory region driver.

Would drivers/misc/qcom-* or drivers/misc/qcom/* be a reasonable place to add them ? and the headers could go into include/linux/qcom-*.h

<snip>

Thanks,
Rohit Vaswani

-- 
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ