linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] pinctrl: qcom: Add SM8350 pinctrl 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Fri, 4 Dec 2020 10:33:47 +0530
From:   Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
To:     Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@...eaurora.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jeevan Shriram <jshriram@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] pinctrl: qcom: Add SM8350 pinctrl driver

On 03-12-20, 17:54, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Thu 03 Dec 01:09 CST 2020, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-sm8350.c b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-sm8350.c
> [..]
> > +static const int sm8350_reserved_gpios[] = {
> > +	52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, -1
> > +};
> 
> Reserving these gpios here instead of in the DT means that there can
> never be a platform configuration using these. Is there a good reason
> for this? Or should we just mark them reserved in DT?

So the question is are these gpios reserved per platform or for the SoC.
Looking at this, seems former, so DT seems better suited. DO you agree?

-- 
~Vinod