linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/10] Regulator ena

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:   Thu, 29 Nov 2018 19:01:32 +0000
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        ckeepax@...nsource.cirrus.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] Regulator ena_gpiod fixups

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 07:38:20PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:

> I'm wondering if instead of using the non-devm variants of
> gpiod_get_*() routines, we shouldn't provide helpers in the regulator
> framework that would be named accordingly, for example:
> regulator_gpiod_get_optional() etc. even if all they do is call the
> relevant gpiolib function. Those helpers could then be documented as
> passing the control over GPIO lines over to the regulator subsystem.

> The reason for that is that most driver developers will automatically
> use devm functions whenever available and having a single non-devm
> function without any comment used in a driver normally using devres
> looks like a bug. Expect people sending "fixes" in a couple months.

I predict that people would then immediately start demanding devm_
variants of that function...

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)