linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] mtd: devices: add AT24 eeprom support

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: <20231129174722.7d4e768c@xps-13>
Date:   Wed, 29 Nov 2023 17:47:22 +0100
From:   Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc:     Marco Felsch <m.felsch@...gutronix.de>, richard@....at,
        vigneshr@...com, arnd@...db.de, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...gutronix.de
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mtd: devices: add AT24 eeprom support

Hello,

brgl@...ev.pl wrote on Wed, 29 Nov 2023 10:10:28 +0100:

> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 5:46 PM Marco Felsch <m.felsch@...gutronix.de> wrote:
> >  
> 
> [snip]
> 
> >
> > I dropped the backward compatibility since this is a new driver not
> > having to deal with it. The old and the new driver can not be used by
> > the same kernel config. So it is either using the MTD eeprom driver
> > supporting partitioning and NVMEM or the older one which does not
> > support partitioning but keeps the backward compatibility.
> >
> > Comments and suggestions are very welcome :)  
> 
> I skimmed through the code. Nothing obviously wrong. What I would
> suggest - if we're going to have two at24 drivers - is a lot more code
> reuse. I dislike the idea of having basically the same code in two
> places in the kernel and having to fix bugs in both.

Agreed.

> Though if I'm being honest - I would prefer a single driver with
> backwards compatibility. Have you estimated the effort it would take
> to abstract both nvmem and mtd?

Also agreed :-)

Thanks,
Miquèl