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: <42553091-1ce0-e7b8-b61b-eca5d723bb32@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 28 May 2020 13:45:19 +0800
From:   "Tanwar, Rahul" <rahul.tanwar@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
Cc:     Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
        thierry.reding@...il.com, p.zabel@...gutronix.de,
        linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        songjun.Wu@...el.com, cheol.yong.kim@...el.com,
        qi-ming.wu@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] Add PWM driver for LGM


On 27/5/2020 5:15 pm, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 02:28:53PM +0800, Tanwar, Rahul wrote:
>> On 22/5/2020 4:56 pm, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 03:41:59PM +0800, Rahul Tanwar wrote:
> ...
>
>>> I'm a unhappy to have this in the PWM driver. The PWM driver is supposed
>>> to be generic and I think this belongs into a dedicated driver.
>> Well noted about all other review concerns. I will rework the driver in v2.
>> However, i am not very sure about the above point - of having a separate
>> dedicated driver for tach_work because its logic is tightly coupled with
>> this driver.
> Actually I agree with Uwe.
> Here is layering violation, i.e. provider and consumer in the same pot. It's
> not good from design perspective.
>

Just to clarify, the PWM controller in our SoC serves just one purpose which
is to control the fan. Its actually named as PWM Fan Controller. There is no
other generic usage or any other consumer for this PWM driver. So separating
out this part seems redundant to me. Also, if we separate it out as a
dedicated driver, this will endup as a very small daemon which is going to be
very hard to justify while upstreaming..

Regards,
Rahul 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ