linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] mfd: intel_soc_pmic_core: Use explicit name of GPIO controller

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 24 Oct 2016 01:22:56 +0200
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] mfd: intel_soc_pmic_core: Use explicit name of
 GPIO controller

On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> [Ville]
>>  The gpio_chip->label which is
>> used for the lookup is based on KBUILD_MODNAME and the moduled is
>> called gpio-crystalcove.
>
> ...which I think is wrong. Only few drivers are binding to file / module
> name.
>
> Perhaps it should be fixed all together.
>
> Naming a bit chaotic in drivers/gpio/*::chip.label, though majority of
> them are using dev_name() of actual device.
>
> Linus, what is your opinion?

The docs says:

/**
 * struct gpio_chip - abstract a GPIO controller
 * @label: a functional name for the GPIO device, such as a part
 *      number or the name of the SoC IP-block implementing it.

Apart from that it is just a name. It does not need to be unique per
instance since the gpiocip0 ... gpiochipN plus sysfs topology
takes care of identifying the chip. I have no strong opinion on it.

Yours,
Linus Walleij