linux-kernel

Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Message-ID: <8b2bb569-a6e0-25ec-740d-48083b30fe60@st.com>
Date:   Tue, 8 Jan 2019 12:01:57 +0100
From:   Fabrice Gasnier <fabrice.gasnier@...com>
To:     Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@...aro.org>,
        William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@...il.com>
CC:     Patrick Havelange <patrick.havelange@...ensium.com>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        Benjamin GAIGNARD <benjamin.gaignard@...com>,
        <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
        Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: New IIO/counter driver

On 1/8/19 11:57 AM, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
> Le mar. 8 janv. 2019 à 01:46, William Breathitt Gray
> <vilhelm.gray@...il.com> a écrit :
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 02:45:37PM +0100, Patrick Havelange wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I'm in the process of adding a new IIO/counter driver, however I also saw
>>> that there was a work in progress to have a separate counter subsystem (
>>> https://marc.info/?l=linux-iio&m=153974167727206 ). But it seems there is
>>> no recent progress on it.
>>> What is the state of those patches ? Is it still interesting to develop the
>>> driver as an IIO/counter , or should I use already that new subsystem ?
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>>
>>> Patrick Havelange.
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am still open to merging this patchset and maintaining the Counter
>> subsystem. However, I took the lack of response for my latest
>> submission to indicate a loss of interest in this patchset's approach.
>> If there are still people who want this, I can rebase and resend this
>> patchset for submission; the past few versions have primarily been code
>> clarity and documentation changes so I believe the core design itself is
>> somewhat stable now.
>>
>> Just let me know how best to proceed and I shall be happy to oblige --
>> whether to continue maintaining this patchset or to drop this design in
>> favor of improving the existing IIO Counter code in the kernel.
>>
>> I'll CC those from the patchset submission to keep them in the loop.
> 
> I confirm that I still interested to get those patches merged.
> 
> Regards,
> Benjamin
Hi,

Same for me,

Regards,
Fabrice
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> William Breathitt Gray
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
>> linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
> 
> 
> 

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