linux-kernel - Re: similar files: fusbh200-hcd.c and fotg210-hcd.c

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: <20150915165002.GP19948@saruman.tx.rr.com>
Date:	Tue, 15 Sep 2015 11:50:02 -0500
From:	Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>
To:	Peter Senna Tschudin <peter.senna@...il.com>
CC:	Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
	Masanari Iida <standby24x7@...il.com>, <pmladek@...e.cz>,
	<linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: similar files: fusbh200-hcd.c and fotg210-hcd.c

Hi,

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 06:41:55PM +0200, Peter Senna Tschudin wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 07:50:02PM +0200, Peter Senna Tschudin wrote:
> >> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 5:01 PM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com> wrote:
> >> > On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 03:14:50PM +0200, Peter Senna Tschudin wrote:
> >> >> >> Should these files be consolidated? And if so how?
> >> >> > if you can find an easy way, that would be a very, very welcome patch.
> >> >>
> >> >> Is the ideal solution to consolidate both fusbh200-hcd.c and
> >> >> fotg210-hcd.c in a single module? If this is the case, how to detect
> >> >> at run time which version of the hw is present? Both are registered as
> >> >
> >> > does it matter ? If they work the same way, why does it matter which
> >> > one's running?
> >>
> >> I may be missing something simple, but based on a 2 page product
> >> brief, fotg210 has more resources like memory. So even if the .c files
> >> are _very_ similar, there are some configuration parameters that
> >> differ, for example:
> >>
> >> fusbh200.h:
> >> #define BMCSR_VBUS_OFF (1<<4)
> >> #define BMCSR_INT_POLARITY (1<<3)
> >>
> >> fotg210.h:
> >> #define OTGCSR_A_BUS_DROP (1 << 5)
> >> #define OTGCSR_A_BUS_REQ (1 << 4)
> >
> > Can you detect that in runtime ? If you can, detect it. If you can't use
> > different platform_device_id.
> >
> >> >> notebook (hp elitebook 840), and on a VM, even if neither has the hw
> >> >> ($ sudo modprobe fusbh200-hcd). The module loads with the warning
> >> >> "fusbh200_hcd should always be loaded before uhci_hcd and ohci_hcd,
> >> >> not after". On another workstation running ubuntu, I could load both
> >> >> modules at the same time, producing the same warning for each module.
> >> >> Should the module load if the device is not present?
> >> >>
> >> >> Other solution for consolidation would be to create a common_code.c,
> >> >> keeping both fusbh200-hcd.c and fotg210-hcd.c only with the code that
> >> >> differ. Is this better than what is there now?
> >> >>
> >> >> Other ideas?
> >> >
> >> > just combine them :-p Use platform_device_id to differentiate.
> 
> Can you check the f2xx branch at:
> 
> git@...hub.com:petersenna/linux.git
> 
> And tell me if this is the way to go for the consolidation of the two
> drivers? I started with the newest driver, did code cleanup, and
> started filling the new driver with parameters from the older
> FUSBH200. At the moment it compiles for x86 and probably still works
> for FOTG210 devices. A concrete question I have is if should I keep
> making many patches for the consolidation or should I do a single big
> patch with all changes? Comments are welcome.

it's best to just send patches. Also, you gave me an ssh URL which I
can't use because I don't have write access to your tree (and I don't
want to have it).

-- 
balbi

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)