linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND 00/16] Support TI LMU devices

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: <5638797E.8020201@ti.com>
Date:	Tue, 3 Nov 2015 18:08:14 +0900
From:	"Kim, Milo" <milo.kim@...com>
To:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
CC:	<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 00/16] Support TI LMU devices


On 11/3/2015 5:33 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2015, Kim, Milo wrote:
>
>> Hi Lee,
>>
>> On 11/2/2015 5:59 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>>>   drivers/video/backlight/Kconfig                    |  62 ++
>>>>>   drivers/video/backlight/Makefile                   |   7 +
>>>>>   drivers/video/backlight/lm3532_bl.c                | 183 +++++
>>>>>   drivers/video/backlight/lm3631_bl.c                | 129 ++++
>>>>>   drivers/video/backlight/lm3632_bl.c                | 125 ++++
>>>>>   drivers/video/backlight/lm3633_bl.c                | 210 ++++++
>>>>>   drivers/video/backlight/lm3695_bl.c                |  91 +++
>>>>>   drivers/video/backlight/lm3697_bl.c                | 187 +++++
>>>>>   drivers/video/backlight/ti-lmu-backlight.c         | 429 ++++++++++++
>>>>>   drivers/video/backlight/ti-lmu-backlight.h         | 152 +++++
>>> How different are all of these drivers?
>>>
>>> Can you create one driver that supports them all instead?
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for your suggestion.
>>
>> 'ti-lmu-backlight' is the common part of lmxxxx_bl drivers. And each
>> lmxxx_bl has its own operation functions by using ti_lmu_bl_ops.
>> I've tried to make consolidated driver but it contained too much
>> device specific code in one file. So I prefer simple drivers
>> structure - 'common part' and 'device specific operations'.
>> It would be appreciated if you could introduce better idea.
>
> I wish to avoid having to apply the patches to conduct my own analysis
> of the files, as I am severely restricted on time.  Can you tell me how
> much duplicated code there is between the files?  How many lines would
> be saved by supporting all of the lm* drivers in a single file?
>

Understood. Let me try it again. I'll get back to you soon.
Thanks for your help.

Best regards,
Milo
--
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/