linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 06/27] misc: eeprom: Export I2C module alias information in missing drivers

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: <20150803130550.12487244@endymion.delvare>
Date:	Mon, 3 Aug 2015 13:05:50 +0200
From:	Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
To:	Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/27] misc: eeprom: Export I2C module alias information
 in missing drivers

Hi Javier,

On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:18:31 +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> The I2C core always reports the MODALIAS uevent as "i2c:<client name"
> regardless if the driver was matched using the I2C id_table or the
> of_match_table. So the driver needs to export the I2C table and this
> be built into the module or udev won't have the necessary information
> to auto load the correct module when the device is added.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>
> 
> ---
> 
>  drivers/misc/eeprom/eeprom.c  | 1 +
>  drivers/misc/eeprom/max6875.c | 1 +
>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/misc/eeprom/eeprom.c b/drivers/misc/eeprom/eeprom.c
> index b432873def96..4bb54e1c40a7 100644
> --- a/drivers/misc/eeprom/eeprom.c
> +++ b/drivers/misc/eeprom/eeprom.c
> @@ -203,6 +203,7 @@ static const struct i2c_device_id eeprom_id[] = {
>  	{ "eeprom", 0 },
>  	{ }
>  };
> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, eeprom_id);
>  
>  static struct i2c_driver eeprom_driver = {
>  	.driver = {

I seem to recall this one is missing on purpose. The legacy eeprom
driver is deprecated in favor of the at24 driver, so no one should
declare "eeprom" i2c devices and thus the module alias is useless. So I
would leave the legacy eeprom driver alone.

The only feature the at24 driver is missing is device auto-detection as
far as I know. Maybe it should be added to ease the transition. Or
maybe not, I admit I'm not sure.

> diff --git a/drivers/misc/eeprom/max6875.c b/drivers/misc/eeprom/max6875.c
> index 580ff9df5529..c74920cc3d18 100644
> --- a/drivers/misc/eeprom/max6875.c
> +++ b/drivers/misc/eeprom/max6875.c
> @@ -197,6 +197,7 @@ static const struct i2c_device_id max6875_id[] = {
>  	{ "max6875", 0 },
>  	{ }
>  };
> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, max6875_id);
>  
>  static struct i2c_driver max6875_driver = {
>  	.driver = {

That one is needed, I agree.

Reviewed-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>

-- 
Jean Delvare
SUSE L3 Support
--
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/