linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv3 0/7] gpio: extend basic_mmio

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]

Date:	Wed, 4 May 2011 15:31:31 +0400
From:	Anton Vorontsov <cbouatmailru@...il.com>
To:	Jamie Iles <jamie@...ieiles.com>
Cc:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux@....linux.org.uk,
	tglx@...utronix.de, arnd@...db.de, nico@...xnic.net,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 0/7] gpio: extend basic_mmio_gpio for different
 controllers

On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 12:09:39PM +0100, Jamie Iles wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 02:34:15AM +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> > On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 11:04:08PM +0100, Jamie Iles wrote:
> > [...]
> > > The advantage that Grant's proposal has though is that the user can 
> > > override the gpio_chip callbacks.  When I tried porting over some 
> > > existing ARM platforms, one of the blocking issues was that lots of 
> > > platforms had some annoying small detail that was slightly different 
> > > (such as doing muxing in the _get() callback or needing a to_irq 
> > > callback).
> > > 
> > > If we make bgpio_chip public and return that from bgpio_probe 
> > > unregistered then the calling code can override some of the methods then 
> > > register the gpio_chip.
> > 
> > Oh, that makes sense, right.
> 
> I've just given this a try and it largely works, but it's probably 
> better if we allow bgpio_chip to be embedded in other structures.  For 
> example, the langwell driver has a gpio_to_irq callback that we would 
> need to get the IRQ base for the bank.  We could add a void *priv member 
> to bgpio_chip but that doesn't feel quite right.
> 
> So,
> 	int bgpio_init(struct bgpio_chip *bgc, struct device *dev, 
> 		       unsigned long sz, void __iomem *dat, ...)
> 
> rather than a probe() that returns the bgpio_chip?

Sounds good to me.

Thanks,

-- 
Anton Vorontsov
Email: cbouatmailru@...il.com
--
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/