netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6 v3 1/1] can: c_can: Added support for Bosch C

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: <4D2C1558.9070100@grandegger.com>
Date:	Tue, 11 Jan 2011 09:31:20 +0100
From:	Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>
To:	Bhupesh SHARMA <bhupesh.sharma@...com>
CC:	Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>,
	Tomoya MORINAGA <tomoya-linux@....okisemi.com>,
	Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"Socketcan-core@...ts.berlios.de" <Socketcan-core@...ts.berlios.de>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6 v3 1/1] can: c_can: Added support for Bosch
 C_CAN controller

On 01/11/2011 05:13 AM, Bhupesh SHARMA wrote:
> Hi Oliver and Wolfgang,
> 
>> From: Wolfgang Grandegger [mailto:wg@...ndegger.com]
>> Hi Oliver,
>>
>> On 01/09/2011 12:01 PM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
>>> On 06.01.2011 21:08, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>>>> Hi Marc,
>>>>
>>>> On 01/06/2011 08:44 PM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
>>>
>>>>> If this driver will be merged, we'll have two drivers for the same
>> can
>>>>> core in the tree. The other one is the pch_can. What do you think
>> should
>>>>> be the mid term perspective for ccan based hardware?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I know. Unfortunately, we did realize rather late the the PCH
>>>> controller is a C_CAN clone and the OKI/Intel ppls did not tell us
>>>> either. Therefore I asked Bhupesh to provide a SJA1000-a-like
>> interface
>>>> for the C_CAN, which would allow us to provide an alternative PCI
>> driver
>>>> "pch_pci.c" for the PCH. If that driver works well on the PCH
>> hardware
>>>> as well, we should merge the best of both, if necessary, and then
>>>> finally remove the pch_can driver. Would that be a reasonable
>> proposal.
>>>
>>> At least for me this looks great. The idea to have a similar approach
>> as we
>>> successfully implemented for the sja1000 will solve future hardware
>>> implementations based on the ccan controller core.
>>
>> A common driver for c_can based devices will stabilize more quickly and
>> does also especially reduce the maintanance effort significantly.
>>
>>> BTW. for the next submission of Bhupeshs patchset, i would propose to
>> name the
>>> driver 'ccan' instead of 'c_can', so that we have a
>>>
>>>     linux/drivers/net/can/ccan/...
>>>
>>> path.
>>
>> You are late ;-). Bosch named the controller *C_CAN* and therefore I
>> asked Bhupesh some time ago to change the file name and variable name
>> prefix from ccan to c_can.
> 
> Actually V1 of this patchset used the naming convention ccan.
> But as was rightly pointed out by Wolfgang and Mark, Bosch
> has officially named this core as C_CAN and the naming convention
> is kept as C_CAN throughout their user-manual and technical articles.
> IMHO, `c_can` seems to represent this Bosch core in a better way 
> than ccan.
> 
>>> Checking directory names in linux/drivers with
>>>
>>>     find . -type d | grep '_'
>>>
>>> driver names with underscores are pretty unusual and mostly selected
>> without
>>> fortune:
>>>
>>> ./staging/olpc_dcon
>>> ./staging/wlags49_h2
>>> ./staging/wlags49_h2/man
>>> ./staging/serqt_usb2
>>> ./staging/intel_sst
>>> ./staging/quatech_usb2
>>> ./staging/asus_oled
>>> ./staging/wlags49_h25
>>> ./staging/ath6kl/hif/sdio/linux_sdio             <- Ugh!
>>> ./staging/ath6kl/hif/sdio/linux_sdio/src
>>> ./staging/ath6kl/hif/sdio/linux_sdio/include
>>> ./net/pch_gbe
>>> ./net/fs_enet
>>> ./net/wireless/libertas_tf
>>> ./net/ibm_newemacds
>>>
>>> For that reason i would prefer 'ccan' to name this driver core.
>>
>> Well, not really a strong argument. But well, if other people do
>> *prefer* ccan I would not object against it. Bhupesh, what's your
>> opinion.
> 
> I also prefer c_can :), because it makes the driver name similar to the
> core name. Please let me know if you agree for the same.

I fully agree and if nobody else complains, we should keep "c_can".

Wolfgang.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html