linux-kernel - Re: An extremely simplified pinctrl bindings proposal

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:	Tue, 7 Feb 2012 02:07:14 +0100
From:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
Cc:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>,
	Dong Aisheng <dongas86@...il.com>,
	Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>,
	Dong Aisheng-B29396 <B29396@...escale.com>,
	"Sascha Hauer (s.hauer@...gutronix.de)" <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
	"rob.herring@...xeda.com" <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	"kernel@...gutronix.de" <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
	"cjb@...top.org" <cjb@...top.org>,
	"Simon Glass (sjg@...omium.org)" <sjg@...omium.org>,
	Thomas Abraham <thomas.abraham@...aro.org>,
	"Grant Likely (grant.likely@...retlab.ca)" 
	<grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	"devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org" 
	<devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: An extremely simplified pinctrl bindings proposal

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com> wrote:

>> I'm not sure if I'm following completely, if this is inside the devicetree-based
>> driver file, would it work to just add a struct dentry * to the
>> pinctrl_desc where you put a per-driver file?
>
> I was thinking generic debufs entries for all drivers.

OK.

>> Or maybe add extern void pinctrl_add_debugfs(struct dentry *) that adds
>> a new file to the existing per-driver directory through the core and then
>> have this add that file?
>
> Sounds like you've thought it further than me already :)
>
> Maybe that's the way to go to solve the one register for
> multiple pins issue.
>
>> Or did you mean that the core.c should be register-aware?
>
> I was just thinking string name ignoring core.c, so that would
> be the pinctrl_add_debugfs() option then. Do you see problems
> with this approach?

No probs, something like that you call any number of times
after registering the core device should work fine I guess.

Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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/