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]
Date:   Wed, 6 Dec 2017 15:29:04 -0600
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc:     Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@...il.com>,
        Sven Van Asbroeck <svendev@...x.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>, nsekhar@...com,
        David Lechner <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 Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 09:14:22AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> 2017-12-05 8:44 GMT+01:00 Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>:
> > 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.
> 
> The eeprom.txt file in the bindings directory actually describes the
> bindings for at24. There's a patch[1] from Wolfram waiting for Rob's
> ack that renames it to at24.txt. I hope that clears any confusion.

It's going to wait forever until it is sent to the DT list so 
patchwork picks it up and is in my queue.

> @Sven: please split the patch into two: one for bindings and one for code.
> 
> As for the name: I would change it to at24,no-read-rollover and remove

at24 is not a vendor.

> the fragment saying it's only supported in at24 - as I said: this file
> only concerns at24 and will be renamed.
> 
> >
> > 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
> 
> Thanks,
> Bartosz
> 
> [1] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/842500/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists