linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] at24: support eeproms that do not auto-rollover reads.

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]

Date:   Tue, 5 Dec 2017 09:44:51 +0200
From:   Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@...il.com>
Cc:     Sven Van Asbroeck <svendev@...x.com>, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        mark.rutland@....com, wsa@...-dreams.de,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>, nsekhar@...com,
        david@...hnology.com, javier@...hile0.org,
        divagar.mohandass@...el.com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-i2c <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sven Van Asbroeck <svenv@...x.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] at24: support eeproms that do not auto-rollover
 reads.

On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 05:24:33PM -0500, Sven Van Asbroeck wrote:
> > If this is truly specific to at24, then vendor prefix would be appropriate,
> > plus it'd go to an at24 specific binding file. However if it isn't I'd just
> > remove the above sentence. I guess the latter?
> 
> Yes, no-read-rollover is truly specific to at24.c, because it applies only
> to i2c multi-address chips. The at25 is spi based so cannot have multiple
> addresses.
> 
> So yes, "at24,no-read-rollover" would perhaps be a better name.
> 
> Regarding an at24 specific binding file. You're saying I should create
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/eeprom/at24.txt ? Should I indicate
> that at24.txt "inherits from" eeprom.txt? Note that at25.txt does not
> currently do this.

Hmm. I actually missed we didn't have one to begin with. at25.txt exists
and it documents a number of properties specific to at25, so if at24 will
have an at24-specific property, then I think it should go to a separate
file.

Aren't there really other chips which need this? It'd be (a little bit)
easier to just remove the sentence. :-)

-- 
Regards,

Sakari Ailus
sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com