linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/9] pinctrl: mvebu: pinctrl driver core

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:	Sun, 2 Sep 2012 09:30:45 +0200
From:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>
Cc:	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Lior Amsalem <alior@...vell.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
	Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>,
	Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@...ethink.co.uk>,
	devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/9] pinctrl: mvebu: pinctrl driver core

On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 6:33 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org> wrote:
> On 08/25/2012 08:53 AM, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
>>
>> now I do understand but in the current driver we pass pingroups associated
>> with the available functions, i.e. "mpp2" with "uart1", "uart2",
>> "sdio0", aso.
>> IMHO for the above three functions it would be better to have functions
>> associated
>> with the corresponding groups, i.e. "uart1" with "mpp_uart1", "mpp2",
>> "mpp3", aso.
>
> The pinctrl subsystem does expect a list of functions, and for each
> function, a list of the groups where it can be selected. I admit that
> when I think about this, it's slightly backward, since HW typically has
> a list of pins/groups, and for each, a certain set of functions can be
> selected. Oh well...

I agree that this is how we engineered it, would it create big hassles
for you to fix up the driver so it's the other way around Sebastian?

I understand that the driver is perfectly working as it is, but from
a subsystem maintainer point of view it is annoying if one driver
turns the concepts around and it gets hard to maintain.

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/