linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 05/18] tty: serial: samsung

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 9 Feb 2021 01:18:21 +0900
From:   Hector Martin <marcan@...can.st>
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     soc@...nel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/18] tty: serial: samsung_tty: add support for Apple
 UARTs

On 08/02/2021 19.34, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 2021-02-07 09:12, Hector Martin 'marcan' wrote:
>> On 06/02/2021 22.15, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> Do you actually need a new port type here? Looking at the driver
>>> itself, it is mainly used to work out the IRQ model. Maybe introducing
>>> a new irq_type field in the port structure would be better than
>>> exposing this to userspace (which should see something that is exactly
>>> the same as a S3C UART).
>>
>> Well... every S3C variant already has its own port type here.
>>
>> #define PORT_S3C2410    55
>> #define PORT_S3C2440    61
>> #define PORT_S3C2400    67
>> #define PORT_S3C2412    73
>> #define PORT_S3C6400    84
>>
>> If we don't introduce a new one, which one should we pretend to be? :)
> 
> Pick one! :D

*queries /dev/urandom* :-)

>> I agree that it might make sense to merge all of these into one,
>> though; I don't know what the original reason for splitting them out
>> is. But now that they're part of the userspace API, this might not be
>> a good idea. Though, unsurprisingly, some googling suggests there are
>> zero users of these defines in userspace.
> 
> I don't think we can do that, but I don't think we should keep adding
> to this unless there is a very good reason. Greg would know, I expect.

Greg, what do you think? Add more PORT_ UART types for Samsung variants, 
or overload one of the existing ones and deal with it in the driver?

-- 
Hector Martin (marcan@...can.st)
Public Key: https://mrcn.st/pub