linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2 4/4] Bluetooth: btwilink: drop superseded driver

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 23 Oct 2019 14:27:45 +0200
From:   Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>
To:     Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
Cc:     Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, Adam Ford <aford173@...il.com>,
        Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@...labora.com>,
        linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...labora.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 4/4] Bluetooth: btwilink: drop superseded driver

Hi,

On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 05:14:15PM +0200, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> Hi Sebastian,
> 
> >>> All users of this driver have been converted to the serdev based
> >>> hci_ll driver. The unused driver can be safely dropped now.
> >>> 
> >>> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@...labora.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> drivers/bluetooth/Kconfig    |  11 --
> >>> drivers/bluetooth/Makefile   |   1 -
> >>> drivers/bluetooth/btwilink.c | 337 -----------------------------------
> >>> 3 files changed, 349 deletions(-)
> >>> delete mode 100644 drivers/bluetooth/btwilink.c
> >> 
> >> patch has been applied to bluetooth-next tree.
> >> 
> >> However what I really like to see is that you re-introduce a
> >> btwilink driver that is purely serdev based and doesn’t rely on
> >> any hci_uart/hci_ldisc code. A clean serdev only driver is that
> >> best and easier to maintain long term.
> > 
> > So basically move the serdev implementation from hci_ll.c into its
> > own driver and make hci_ll hci_uart based only? That effectively
> > means, that we have two implementations of the protocol. I don't
> > think this will improve maintainability, since then bugs needs to
> > be fixed in two places? Note, that we have a couple of drivers
> > with serdev+hci_uart by now:
> > 
> > for file in $(grep -l serdev drivers/bluetooth/hci_*c) ; grep -l hci_uart_register_proto "${file}"
> > hci_bcm.c
> > hci_h5.c
> > hci_ldisc.c
> > hci_ll.c
> > hci_mrvl.c
> > hci_qca.c
> 
> I would like to have something similar to btmtkuart.c which is a
> pure serdev driver that doesn’t depend on any hci_ldisc.c
> framework. If we have this, then we would just drop hci_ll.c from
> the kernel and focus on the serdev only version. As noted, there
> is no need for any other driver at that point since everything is
> probed anyway. Users will not even notice the difference.

This can be achieved by just removing the hci_uart part from
hci_ll. But AFAIK there are some non-wilink based TI HCILL
devices, which do not require any extra platform data and might
still use the hci_uart part.

-- Sebastian

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)