linux-kernel - Re: Questions about NVMEM

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: <CAK7LNASd_sutn0X=JjMcBShgzdnhsdr1vnMTBFNnBYHziui6Ng@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 11 Sep 2017 21:40:17 +0900
From:   Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
To:     Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@...aro.org>,
        Keiji Hayashibara <hayashibara.keiji@...ionext.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew-CT Chen <andrew-ct.chen@...iatek.com>,
        Carlo Caione <carlo@...lessm.com>,
        Michael Grzeschik <m.grzeschik@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: Questions about NVMEM

Hi Srinivas,


2017-09-11 20:13 GMT+09:00 Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>:
> Hi Masahiro,
>
> On 11/09/17 11:33, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (C) looks reasonable because nvmem_config is pretty small.
>>>> (sizeof(struct nvmem_config) = 104 byte on 64bit systems)
>>>>
>>> Yep, thats much better indeed!
>>
>> OK.
>> I think (B) should be fixed as soon as possible
>> because new drivers often copy existing drivers.
>>
> I agree, are you planning to send the fixes for these?
> or
> Am happy to do that if not.


I will post patches soon with some more fixes/cleanups.

Please check if you like it or not.



>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (Q3) The style of  drivers/nvmem/Makefile
>>>>
>>>> This Makefile looks ugly to me.
>>>> All nvmem drivers are just single file modules.
>>>> Why are they renamed when modules are created?
>>>>
>>>> For the name-space reason for modules,
>>>> prefix "nvmem-" makes sense to me.
>>>>
>>>> It is true that adding "nvmem-" prefix is redundant while
>>>> they are located in drivers/nvmem/ directory,
>>>> but renaming in the Makefile is even more annoying to me.
>>>> Having said that, we may not want to churn this.
>>>
>>> This is mainly done for consistent module naming.
>>> I prefer to have nvmem- prefix for nvmem modules.
>>>
>> I 100% agree that all nvmem modules should have "nvmem-" prefix
>> consistently.
>>
>> My question was, why .c files do not have the same file name as
>> the module name?
>
> Not sure if this is some thing mandatory! but its good to have kinda thing.


I was not saying this is mandatory.
I was just curious.

Then Greg answered - Looks like this is the style
at least some subsystems are going towards.

Oh well, this Makefile is unreadable (at least to me).



> My take was irrespective of what name the files are, the module names should
> have a consistent prefix of "nvmem-"
>
> On the other hand there is some inconsistency in some of the module prefix,
> some of them are being used with prefix "nvmem_" and others with "nvmem-".
> we should fix this too.
> Its one of my todo thing, which I probably should fix now!!

Changing module names might have certain degree of impacts,
but I do not have a strong opinion about this.

If you care "nvmem-" or "nvmem_",
please tell us your preference.
Socionext is trying to upstream a new driver.






-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada