linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] serial: 8250_pci: Add support for Sunix serial boards

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]

Message-ID: <CAHp75VedrnJDOoJGuYJiFAx3ODGAMFx7nTKuoErNn3NWYSn_gA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 13 Aug 2019 11:23:35 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@...onical.com>,
        Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>,
        "open list:SERIAL DRIVERS" <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Morris Ku <morris_ku@...ix.com>,
        Debbie Liu <debbie_liu@...ix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] serial: 8250_pci: Add support for Sunix serial boards

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 9:12 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 12:36:40PM +0800, Kai-Heng Feng wrote:
> > at 21:18, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 10:05 PM Kai-Heng Feng
> > > <kai.heng.feng@...onical.com> wrote:

> > > Can you, please, split out the Sunix quirk driver to a separate module
> > > (see examples like: 8250_exar, 8250_lpss, 8250_mid)?
> > > And then with a fewer LOCs add a new boards.
> >
> > Greg asked Sunix to use existing 8250_pci.c instead of its own module.
> > It only needs a special setup function, other parts are just 8250_pci.
>
> Agreed.  And this patch is already in my tree :)
>
> If people really worry about size issues, start carving this up by
> different configuration options, or yes, split it up into tiny modules
> (but note the overhead there when things get too tiny, it's a
> diminishing return).

It's always a trade off and associative pros and cons. If Sunix is a
simple one, I tend to agree that 8250_pci is a good place. For rather
big quirk modules, like Exar one, the separate sounds better (and as
we can see from retrospective of maintenance).

>
> > Why does split them a better idea? I even think of squashing 8250_moxa into
> > 8250_pci.
>
> I would agree with you, I bet you save space if you do that.



-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko