linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] Make non-linear GPIO ranges accesible from gpiolib

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, 25 Jun 2013 17:53:45 +0200
From:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
Cc:	Christian Ruppert <christian.ruppert@...lis.com>,
	Patrice CHOTARD <patrice.chotard@...com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
	Sascha Leuenberger <sascha.leuenberger@...lis.com>,
	Pierrick Hascoet <pierrick.hascoet@...lis.com>,
	"devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org" 
	<devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Make non-linear GPIO ranges accesible from gpiolib

On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org> wrote:
> On 06/25/2013 09:28 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:

>> But I do seem to recall some endless discussions about this,
>> I think we need to agree to disagree.
>
> But the whole point of a subsystem is to provide clear common semantics
> across all the different drivers that comprise it.

I guess we simply disagree on how deeply these semantics
should go.

> IMHO, it's a great
> failing of pinctrl that it doesn't clearly define its data model at all,
> and just leaves individual driver authors to use groups in whatever
> random fashion they want.

I do not think any driver is using it in a "random" fashion.
I would agree if the authors just stuck any pins into some
random groups named after colors or rock bands.

Obviously there is a mental model of the uses somewhere
behind the code.

> We really should have different entries in the
> pinctrl data model for these different concepts (real HW groups, and
> logical/virtual/SW groups) since they're entirely different things with
> different semantics.

That's what the tongue-in-cheek patch tried to convey, in some
kind of humorous manner. I was just trying to lighten up the
discussion a bit.

> Perhaps it's simplest if I just step out of pinctrl and let it exist as
> it is.

No not at all. Your work on defining and reviewing the pinctrl
drivers and DT bindings is much appreciated. However all
comittee work tend to lead to a few compromises. I don't
think this one compromise is especially hard to live with.

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/