linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] gpiolib: Implement devm_gpio_request

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:	Fri, 06 Apr 2012 19:25:12 -0700
From:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] gpiolib: Implement devm_gpio_request_one()

On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 15:49:17 +0100, Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 09:48:32PM -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
> 
> > Can we make devm_gpio_request a static inline wrapper around
> > devm_gpio_request_one() with the flags field set to '0'?  I don't liek
> > the duplication of this function.
> 
> > Similarily, gpio_request() should actually be a static inline around
> > gpio_request_one() instead of the other way around as it is currently
> > written.
> 
> Yeah, I couldn't understand why the non-managed functions were written
> in this way so I followed the same pattern when I added the managed one
> assuming that the original code was sane.

Actually, I looked at it again, and the _one version behaves subtly
different from the non-_one version.  That may be irrelevant though.

g.


-- 
Grant Likely, B.Sc, P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies,Ltd.
--
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/