linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 4/7] gpio: pca953x: define masks for addressing common and extended registers

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, 4 May 2018 09:33:57 +0200
From:   "H. Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@...delico.com>
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
        Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
        Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
        kernel@...a-handheld.com,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
        Discussions about the Letux Kernel 
        <letux-kernel@...nphoenux.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/7] gpio: pca953x: define masks for addressing common and extended registers

Hi Linus,

> Am 02.05.2018 um 14:36 schrieb H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@...delico.com>:
> 
> 
>> Am 02.05.2018 um 14:29 schrieb Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>:
>> 
>> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 7:31 PM, H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@...delico.com> wrote:
>>> These mask bits are to be used to map the extended register
>>> addreseses (which are defined for an unsupported 8-bit pcal chip)
>>> to 16 and 24 bit chips (pcal6524).
>>> 

>>> 
>>> +#define PCAL_GPIO_MASK         GENMASK(4, 0)
>>> +#define PCAL_PINCTRL_MASK      (~PCAL_GPIO_MASK)
>> 
>> I'm not sure which would be better here
>> 
>> 1) to follow existing style
>> 0x1F
>> 0xE0
>> 
>> 2) to use GENMASK() in both definitions
>> 
>> 3) as it in this patch.
>> 
>> 
>> Whatever Linus prefers.
> 
> Ok, waiting for his suggestion.

Any advice if we should change or keep this?

(Please do not merge before I submit a v6 because there are
some more suggested-by and reviewed-by).

BR and thanks,
Nikolaus