linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/6] fieldbus_dev: add Fieldbus Device subsystem.

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: <CAGngYiWG74nDt1_hN0-bKCDRxm-f=N-Rnjtk02Vd7dgKtGRaBA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 5 Dec 2018 17:32:19 -0500
From:   Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@...il.com>
To:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Cc:     Sven Van Asbroeck <svendev@...x.com>, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>, mark.rutland@....com,
        Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de>,
        treding@...dia.com, David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>,
        noralf@...nnes.org, johan@...nel.org,
        Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>, michal.vokac@...ft.com,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, john.garry@...wei.com,
        geert+renesas@...der.be, robin.murphy@....com,
        paul.gortmaker@...driver.com,
        sebastien.bourdelin@...oirfairelinux.com, icenowy@...c.io,
        Stuart Yoder <stuyoder@...il.com>, maxime.ripard@...tlin.com,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/6] fieldbus_dev: add Fieldbus Device subsystem.

Thanks :)

On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 2:17 PM Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Great, then call it a 'fieldbus' class, not "fieldbus_dev' class.

Small nit:

Hardware connected to a fieldbus comes in two distinct flavours:
- clients (e.g. thermometer, robotic arm) called "fieldbus devices"
- servers (e.g. a PLC) called "fieldbus controllers"

Their userspace APIs will probably differ quite a lot.

The userspace API created by the patch is only for clients a.k.a.
"fieldbus devices". That's why I'm writing 'fieldbus_dev' all over the place.

For simplicity, we could change that to just 'fieldbus'. But would this get
us in trouble when, at some point, we want to add a userspace API for
servers a.k.a. "fieldbus controllers" ?