linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/21] eeprom: at24: driver refactoring

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:   Mon, 19 Mar 2018 16:21:23 +0100
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-i2c <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/21] eeprom: at24: driver refactoring

2018-03-19 15:43 GMT+01:00 Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:17 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote:
>> This series contains what I hope to be a non-controversial refactoring
>> of the at24 eeprom driver.
>>
>> Most changes revolve around at24_probe() which became quite complicated
>> and hard to read.
>>
>> The only functional changes are: disabling the internal locking
>> mechanisms of regmap (since we already take care of that in the driver)
>> and removing an if checking if byte_len is a power of 2 (as we do
>> support models for which it's not true).
>>
>> All other patches affect readability and code structure.
>>
>> Tested with a couple models and different both for device tree and
>> platform data modes.
>
> Is there any available tree with that series applied?
> I would test it on Intel Galileo Gen 2 which has ACPI enumerated AT24
> EEPROM attached.
>

Yes, it's in my github tree:

    https://github.com/brgl/linux    topic/at24/refactoring

Thanks in advance for testing it!

Best regards,
Bartosz