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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 22:37:18 -0700 From: Gregory Bean <gbean@...eaurora.org> To: Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org> CC: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>, Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>, Michael Hennerich <michael.hennerich@...log.com>, Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>, David Brown <davidb@...eaurora.org>, Daniel Walker <dwalker@...eaurora.org>, Bryan Huntsman <bryanh@...eaurora.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpio: msm7200a: Add gpiolib support for MSM chips. > Why not put this under arch/arm? Is there an appropriate place for loadable device drivers under arch/arm? I don't know of one. >> +static inline void set_gpio_bit(unsigned n, void __iomem *reg) >> +{ >> + writel(readl(reg) | bit(n), reg); >> +} >> + >> +/* >> + * This function assumes that msm_gpio_dev::lock is held. >> + */ >> +static inline void clr_gpio_bit(unsigned n, void __iomem *reg) >> +{ >> + writel(readl(reg)& ~bit(n), reg); >> +} >> + >> +/* >> + * This function assumes that msm_gpio_dev::lock is held. >> + */ >> +static inline void >> +msm_gpio_write(struct msm_gpio_dev *dev, unsigned n, unsigned on) >> +{ >> + if (on) >> + set_gpio_bit(n, dev->regs.out); >> + else >> + clr_gpio_bit(n, dev->regs.out); >> +} > > wouldn't it be easier to inline a set_to function and just role the > set and clr bit functions into it, since they pretty much do the > same thing. even better, on arm the code won't require a branch. I'm not sure I understand you. Can you clarify? set_ and clr_gpio_bit are used in more places than just here, so they can't just be rolled into msm_gpio_write and disappear. >> +static int msm_gpio_remove(struct platform_device *dev) >> +{ >> + struct msm_gpio_dev *msm_gpio = platform_get_drvdata(dev); >> + int ret = gpiochip_remove(&msm_gpio->gpio_chip); >> + >> + if (ret == 0) >> + kfree(msm_gpio); > > hmm, not sure if you really need to check the result here before > kfrree() the memory. I feel that this is important. If any clients are still holding gpio lines, gpiochip_remove will fail. In those circumstances, is it not important that the device not be freed (which would leave clients with stale references) and that the remove call return a proper failure code? -- Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists