| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 19:17:11 +0300
From: "Alex A. Mihaylov" <minimumlaw@...bler.ru>
To: Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] Introduce regmap infrastructure over Maxim/Dalas
OneWire (W1) bus
> Alex, it is up to you to decide whether you want to push your regmap version or not,
> I will not object against, but in my personal opinion your first version version was much cleaner.
I don't know. First edition (without regmap) was very simple. I think
anyone could understand how this code works.
On the other hand, there is already a lot of duplicate code in the
kernel, which is responsible for accessing device registers on the bus.
In this sense, using the regmap infrastructure should help. As for the
complex description of registers of a simple device, I consciously went
into this complication by describing all the holes in the register map.
Since this driver is a pioneer, he must use the maximum of
infrastructure capabilities.
But I somehow do not really believe in the correctness of the
realisation of regmap for W1. I have too few devices working with this
bus. Theory, they all can work with my implementation of regmap. But not
the fact that there will not be those who can not.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists