linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] eeprom: at24: extend driver to plug into the NVMEM framework

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: <55D200BC.3040104@linaro.org>
Date:	Mon, 17 Aug 2015 16:41:48 +0100
From:	Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
To:	Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
CC:	Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@...e.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
	wsa@...-dreams.de, Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] eeprom: at24: extend driver to plug into the NVMEM
 framework



On 17/08/15 16:25, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 03:59:23PM +0100, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 17/08/15 14:09, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 02:01:24PM +0100, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +Adding Maxime in the loop
>>>>
>>>> On 16/08/15 16:37, Stefan Wahren wrote:
>>>>>>> Another question which spring to mind is, do we want the eeprom to be
>>>>>>> in /sys twice, the old and the new way? Backwards compatibility says
>>>>>>> the old must stay. Do we want a way to suppress the new? Or should we
>>>>>>> be going as far as refractoring the code into a core library, and two
>>>>>>> wrapper drivers, old and new?
>>>>> I think these are questions for the framework maintainers.
>>>>>
>>>> One of the reasons for the NVMEM framework is to remove that
>>>> duplicate code in the every driver.  There was no framework/ABI
>>>> which was guiding such old eeprom sysfs entry in first place, so I
>>>> dont see an issue in removing it for good. Correct me if am wrong.
>>>
>>> The reason for keeping it is backwards compatibility. Having the
>>> contents of the EEPROM as a file in /sys via this driver is now a part
>>> of the Linux ABI. You cannot argue it is not an ABI, just because
>>> there is no framework. Userspace will be assuming it exists at the
>>> specified location. So we cannot remove it, for existing uses of the
>>> driver.
>> Am Ok as long as someone is happy to maintain it.
>
> Wolfram Sang has been maintaining the AT24 driver since 2008. We need
> his ACK to this change, and since this is an i2c driver, he is also
> probably the path into mainline for this change.
>
> But we should also look at the bigger picture. The AT25, MAX6875 and
> sunxi_sid drivers also have a binary file in /sys. It would be good to
> have some sort of plan what to do with these drivers, even if at the
> moment only AT24 is under discussion.#

+1


>
>         Andrew
>
--
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/