linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] usb: mux: add common code for Intel dual role port mux

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: <5704A59C.8040500@linux.intel.com>
Date:	Wed, 6 Apr 2016 13:58:52 +0800
From:	Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>
Cc:	Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...el.com>,
	Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>,
	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
	Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
	Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
	MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] usb: mux: add common code for Intel dual role port
 mux

Hi,

On 03/11/2016 07:57 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 01:39:43PM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote:
>> On Tue, 2016-03-08 at 15:53 +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-platform b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-platform
>>> index 5172a61..a2261cb 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-platform
>>> +++ b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-platform
>>> @@ -18,3 +18,18 @@ Description:
>>>  		devices to opt-out of driver binding using a driver_override
>>>  		name such as "none".  Only a single driver may be specified in
>>>  		the override, there is no support for parsing delimiters.
>>> +
>>> +What:		/sys/bus/platform/devices/.../intel_mux
>> Hi,
>>
>> is there any reason to call this "intel_mux"? We want a common interface
>> for such things. So how about "role_mux" or "master_slave_mux"?
> I agree, don't make this intel specific, as it shouldn't be.
>

By the way, do you expect a class for port mux in sysfs?

Best regards,
Baolu