linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 6/9] mfd: intel-m10-bmc: Downscope SPI defines & prefix with M10BMC

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

Date:   Thu, 8 Dec 2022 13:57:56 +0200 (EET)
From:   Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@...el.com>
cc:     Russ Weight <russell.h.weight@...el.com>,
        linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org, Wu Hao <hao.wu@...el.com>,
        Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>, Moritz Fischer <mdf@...nel.org>,
        Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>,
        Matthew Gerlach <matthew.gerlach@...ux.intel.com>,
        Tianfei zhang <tianfei.zhang@...el.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Marco Pagani <marpagan@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/9] mfd: intel-m10-bmc: Downscope SPI defines & prefix
 with M10BMC_SPI

On Mon, 5 Dec 2022, Xu Yilun wrote:

> On 2022-12-05 at 11:31:06 +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > On Fri, 2 Dec 2022, Russ Weight wrote:
> > > On 12/2/22 08:28, Xu Yilun wrote:
> > > > On 2022-12-02 at 12:08:38 +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > > >> Move SPI based board definitions to per interface file from the global
> > > >> header. This makes it harder to use them accidently in the
> > > >> generic/interface agnostic code. Prefix the defines with M10BMC_SPI
> > > > I'm not sure if the register layout is actually bound to the bus
> > > > interface. My experience is the register layout is always decided by
> > > > board type. Is it possible there will be a new SPI based board but
> > > > has different register layout in future?
> > > >
> > > > So is M10BMC_SPI_XXX a good nam
> > > 
> > > There could be future devices, spi or pmci based, that require different
> > > addresses for some of these values, and at that time we would need to
> > > additional versions of some of these macros using different names.
> > > Right now, spi and pmci are the primary differentiating factors. I'm not
> > > sure how to improve on the naming. Do you have any suggestions?
> > 
> > It's per board type yes, but there's a strong clustering currently on 
> > spi/pmci differentiation. That implies a one define applies to multiple 
> > board types so naming it, e.g., after a single board type seems not much 
> > better than the current approach.
> 
> I think it is better to name after one of the board type among all its
> supported types. At least it clearly indicates they are related to board
> type.
> 
> Actually it is normal for many driver modules. A driver was initially
> implemented for one board type, and was named by the initial board.
> But later you have more board types compatible to the driver, you don't
> change the driver name, just use it.

Ok, I'll do it that way then.

-- 
 i.