linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] Add support for Microsoft Surface System Aggregator Module

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: <CAHp75VdGjQwzG_hESp8sQzfWjP6ccE5rMXjig94FKWmzhWOHSg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 25 Sep 2020 17:53:10 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@...il.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:SERIAL DRIVERS" <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        Blaž Hrastnik <blaz@...n.io>,
        Dorian Stoll <dorian.stoll@...p.io>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
        Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] Add support for Microsoft Surface System
 Aggregator Module

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 10:38 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 8:59 PM Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@...il.com> wrote:
> > On 9/24/20 10:26 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 1:28 AM Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > > Note that drivers that connect to the bus typically don't live in the
> > > same subdirectory as the driver that operates the bus. E.g. the
> > > battery driver would go into drivers/power/supply and the input
> > > would go into drivers/input/ or drivers/hid.
> >
> > Right. I wonder if this also holds for devices that are directly
> > dependent on a special platform though? It could make sense to have them
> > under plaform/surface rather than in the individual subsystems as they
> > are only ever going to be used on this platform. On the other hand, one
> > could argue that having them in the subsystem directories is better for
> > maintainability.
>
> Yes, absolutely. The subsystem maintainers are the ones that are
> most qualified of reviewing code that uses their subsystem, regardless
> of which bus is used underneath the device, and having all drivers
> for a subsystem in one place makes it much easier to refactor them
> all at once in case the internal interfaces are changed or common bugs
> are found in multiple drivers.

The problem is that some of the drivers are mostly reincarnation of
board files due to the platform being Windows-oriented with badly
written ACPI tables / firmware as a whole (which means a lot of quirks
are required).

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko