linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 3/3] pinctrl: Add Pistachio SoC pin control driver

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 31 Mar 2015 11:37:23 -0700
From:	Andrew Bresticker <abrestic@...omium.org>
To:	Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
Cc:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
	Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux-MIPS <linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel.garcia@...tec.com>,
	James Hartley <james.hartley@...tec.com>,
	James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>,
	Damien Horsley <Damien.Horsley@...tec.com>,
	Govindraj Raja <govindraj.raja@...tec.com>,
	Kevin Cernekee <cernekee@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 3/3] pinctrl: Add Pistachio SoC pin control driver

Hi Paul,

On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl> wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On Tue, 2015-03-31 at 09:56 -0700, Andrew Bresticker wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 1:10 AM, Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl> wrote:
>> > The patch adds a mismatch between the Kconfig symbol (a bool) and the
>> > code (which suggests that a modular build is also possible).
>>
>> Nearly all of the pinctrl drivers (with the exception of qcom and
>> intel) are like this.
>
> Could be, I didn't check. Perhaps copy and pasting is to blame. (Copy
> and pasting appears to me a sensible way to start writing a new driver).
>
>> They use a bool Kconfig symbol but they are
>> written so that they could be built as a module in the future.
>
> Did I miss a comment or a remark in the commit explanation that explains
> this? Anyhow, if that modular future is not expected to be the near
> future, can you perhaps carry these lines in a branch called, say
> pinctrl-modular?

I have no immediate plans to make this a module, but since the changes
to make it buildable as a module have no overhead (at least I think
they don't!) I'd prefer to leave them in for consistency and to
eliminate any need for these changes in the future.  I'll leave it up
to LinusW though.

Thanks,
Andrew
--
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/