linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2 3/5] net: rfkill: gpio: remove gpio names

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, 7 Mar 2014 11:43:52 +0800
From:	Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>
To:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Rhyland Klein <rklein@...dia.com>,
	Marc Dietrich <marvin24@....de>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
	linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 3/5] net: rfkill: gpio: remove gpio names

On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org> wrote:
>> On 03/04/2014 07:37 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org> wrote:
>>>> On 03/04/2014 06:43 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>>
>>>>> If I understand the situation correctly it's like ACPI does not have named
>>>>> GPIOs so keeping specifying this in DT GPIO bindings is counter-productive
>>>>> to the work of abstracting the access to GPIO handlers so that drivers
>>>>> need not know whether ACPI or DT is used for describing the hardware.
>>>>
>>>> For devices that already have both ACPI and DT bindings, we can't
>>>> pretend they can be the same; they are already potentially different. We
>>>> simply need to parse DT and ACPI differently, since that's the sway
>>>> their bindings are defined.
>>>>
>>>> For any devices that don't have both ACPI and DT bindings, I agree we
>>>> should certainly strive to make any new bindings aligned so we don't
>>>> have to deal with this for them.
>>>>
>>>> However, we can't change the past.
>>>
>>> Yeah, right, so for this very driver there are no bindings defined (yet)
>>> and the only device tree I can find referencing it is the Tegra20-paz00
>>> and it just use gpios = <>;
>>>
>>> So in this case I think this patch is the right way forward, but I admit
>>> I'm really uncertain in the general case.
>>
>> If there are no bindings defined at all yet, then we can define both DT
>> and ACPI bindings to use name-based GPIOs. Index-based lookups aren't a
>> good way forward.
>
> After Mark clarifying that ACPI is going to have named GPIOs I'm
> totally aligned on this, so OK!

Glad to hear this, but is it possible to get rid of the index in current
drivers? Or change the behavior to name-based OR index-based lookups.
This might break any DTs that have multiple GPIOs defined under one
property though.


Cheers
ChenYu
--
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/