linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] phy: samsung: move the Samsung specific phy files to "samsung" directory

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <58C65FCF.4030207@ti.com>
Date:   Mon, 13 Mar 2017 14:31:03 +0530
From:   Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>
To:     Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@...eaurora.org>
CC:     Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@...sung.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kukjin Kim <kgene@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, <kamil@...as.org>,
        Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@...sung.com>,
        Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>,
        <inux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] phy: samsung: move the Samsung specific phy files to
 "samsung" directory

Hi Vivek,

On Monday 13 March 2017 02:27 PM, Vivek Gautam wrote:
> Hi Kishon,
> 
> 
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sunday 12 March 2017 02:48 PM, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>>> Hi Kishon,
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday 09 March 2017 05:03 PM, Jaehoon Chung wrote:
>>>>> Make the "samsung" directory and move the Samsung specific files to
>>>>> there for maintaining the files relevant to Samsung.
>>>>
>>>> The number of phy drivers in drivers/phy is getting unmanageable. I think this
>>>> is a good step to make it a little better. Can you also add a MAINTAINER for
>>>> drivers/phy/samsung?
>>>
>>> I remember making a similar attempt in past [1], but that time we couldn't
>>> reach an agreement as to whether group the phy drivers based on
>>> vendors or based on the type of phy.
>>>
>>> If you are fine with grouping the drivers for each vendor, I hope you can
>>> consider picking that patch (I can respin the patch based on linux-phy/next).
>>> Other driver maintainers were also cool with that older patch.
>>
>> Sure, you can re-spin the patch.
> 
> Thanks, will re-spin the patch.
> 
>>
>> At that point of time I didn't think grouping phy drivers for each vendor is
>> required. But especially after [1] where I failed to notice an existing phy
>> driver can be reused and later has to be reverted. This could have been easily
>> identified by MAINTAINERS of that particular platform. That's why now I feel
>> grouping phy drivers and having a MAINTAINER for every vendor directory will
>> help to identify such issues.
> 
> I will be able to update the MAINTAINERS file for the directory structure
> change only, like I did in my earlier version.
> We will have to ask each vendors to pull in vendors for each directory.

That's fine. Eventually we'll get that added.

Thanks
Kishon