linux-kernel - Re: [-mm patch 1/4] GPIO framework for AVR32

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]

Message-Id: <20061108221220.44E6C1DC983@adsl-69-226-248-13.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net>
Date:	Wed, 08 Nov 2006 14:12:20 -0800
From:	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
To:	hskinnemoen@...el.com
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, andrew@...people.com, akpm@...l.org
Subject: Re: [-mm patch 1/4] GPIO framework for AVR32

> The request/free calls aren't really arch-specific, are they?

Remember that where one platform may use numbers 32-159 for GPIOs, another
might use 0-71 ... GPIO numbering has an arch-specific core, but whether
a given board adds more GPIOs from an FPGA or other non-SOC chip is even
more variable than "arch-specific".

> I implement the actual allocation mechanism using atomic bitops.

That's a fair way to implement it, sure; but if you look at e.g. how
OMAP does it, the bitmap is inside a per-controller structure.  When
one chip has two different _types_ of GPIO controller, and multiple
instances of one (plus restrictions applying to specific instances),
the notion of an arch-neutral implementation there seems unworkable.

- Dave

-
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/