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  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:   Thu, 21 May 2020 17:53:47 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Tali Perry <tali.perry1@...il.com>
Cc:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>, Ofer Yehielli <ofery@...gle.com>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
        avifishman70@...il.com, Tomer Maimon <tmaimon77@...il.com>,
        kfting@...oton.com, Patrick Venture <venture@...gle.com>,
        Nancy Yuen <yuenn@...gle.com>,
        Benjamin Fair <benjaminfair@...gle.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
        OpenBMC Maillist <openbmc@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 2/3] i2c: npcm7xx: Add Nuvoton NPCM I2C controller
 driver

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 05:45:03PM +0300, Tali Perry wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 5:31 PM Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 05:23:40PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 02:09:09PM +0300, Tali Perry wrote:
> > > > Add Nuvoton NPCM BMC I2C controller driver.
> > >
> > > Thanks. My comments below.
> > > After addressing them, FWIW,
> > > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
> >
> > Thanks, Andy, for all the review!
> >
> 
> Highly appreciate your time and patience for a newbie :)
> 
> > From a glimpse, this looks good to go. I will have a close look later
> > today.
> >
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS
> > >
> > > Again, why is this here?
> > >
> > > Have you checked debugfs.h for !CONFIG_DEBUG_FS case?
> 
> I compiled both options. I removed the ifdef in most places, except in the
> struct itself. Users that don't use the debugfs don't need this in the struct.
> 
> >
> > I wondered also about DEBUG_FS entries. I can see their value when
> > developing the driver. But since this is done now, do they really help a
> > user to debug a difficult case? I am not sure, and then I wonder if we
> > should have that code in upstream. I am open for discussion, though.
> 
> The user wanted to have health monitor implemented on top of the driver.
> The user has 16 channels connected the multiple devices. All are operated
> using various daemons in the system. Sometimes the slave devices are power down.
> Therefor the user wanted to track the health status of the devices.

Ah, then there are these options I have in mind (Wolfram, FYI as well!):
1) push with debugfs as a temporary solution and convert to devlink health protocol [1];
2) drop it and develop devlink_health solution;
3) push debugfs and wait if I²C will gain devlink health support

[1]: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/networking/devlink/devlink-health.html

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko


Powered by blists - more mailing lists