linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] USB: ftdi

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CACRpkdatvRVQFP12wuohOF8Z_bcsdhq622f+Kej8wM2B05-Wcw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 16 Jul 2015 13:56:00 +0200
From:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Sascha Silbe <x-linux@...ra-silbe.de>,
	Johan Hovold <jhovold@...il.com>,
	Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
	"linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: ftdi_sio: add GPIO support

On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 12:13 AM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> wrote:
>> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Grant Likely
>> <grant.likely@...retlab.ca> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 6:31 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
>>> <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>>>>> However is the MFD cell approach acceptable?
>>>>
>>>> Yes it is.
>>>
>>> Going back to this old conversation... Actually, I disagree. There is
>>> absolutely no need to go the MFD approach for this driver. That just
>>> adds layers of abstraction for no purpose. GPIOLIB is an interface,
>>> and it is completely fine for a driver to hook up to the GPIOLIB
>>> interface at the same time as exposing a serial port. MFD doesn't buy
>>> the driver anything useful here.
>>
>> What is buys is centralizing code into the proper drivers/gpio
>> folder of the kernel. So more of a maintenance point than a
>> mechanics/performance point.
>>
>> We do have GPIO drivers scattered all over the kernel so one
>> more or less wouldn't matter so much...
>
> Yeah, I would say that's a non-reason. When it comes to a single
> device, it is far better in my opinion to have the entire driver
> located together rather than splitting it up into parts so that each
> part lives with it's subsystem. We've got tools for find users of
> interfaces, whereas spliting a driver up can make maintenance a lot
> more complicated.

Yeah I already gave up on this in some other thread :D

Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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/