linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] soc: qcom: Add SoC info driver

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <3567809.JctLPjIDdk@wuerfel>
Date:   Tue, 25 Oct 2016 22:49:07 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Imran Khan <kimran@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     andy.gross@...aro.org, David Brown <david.brown@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "open list:ARM/QUALCOMM SUPPORT" <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:ARM/QUALCOMM SUPPORT" <linux-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] soc: qcom: Add SoC info driver

On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 3:23:34 PM CEST Imran Khan wrote:
> On 10/21/2016 4:03 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> +/* socinfo: sysfs functions */
> > 
> > This seems overly verbose, having both raw and human-readable
> > IDs is generally not necessary, pick one of the two. If you
> > need any fields that we don't already support in soc_device,
> > let's talk about adding them to the generic structure.
> > 
> > 
> 
> Okay. I will go for human readable IDs. Can we add 2 more fields
> in the generic structure.
> These 2 fields would be:
> 
> vendor: A string for vendor name
> serial_number: A string containing serial number for the platform


serial_number seems straightforward, adding this seems like a good
idea. I don't understand yet what would go into the vendor field
though. For this particular driver, is it always "Qualcomm", or
would it be a third-party that makes a device based on that chip?

	Arnd