linux-kernel - Re: [Bulk] 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20061109204131.E49241DA30B@adsl-69-226-248-13.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net>
Date:	Thu, 09 Nov 2006 12:41:31 -0800
From:	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
To:	andrew@...people.com
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hskinnemoen@...el.com, akpm@...l.org
Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [-mm patch 1/4] GPIO framework for AVR32

> We originally had at91_set_gpio_direction() in the AT91 GPIO layer, and
> that seemed to cause confusion  (eg, do I pass a 1 or 0 to enable output
> mode?)

I was thinking the __bitwise annotation on GPIO_IN and GPIO_OUT should
address that problem, but for some reason it isn't doing that.  I must
be doing something wrong; even "sparse" isn't warning when passing a
bogus parameter.

> So I'd personally prefer to keep gpio_set_input() and
> gpio_set_output().  (alternative is "enable" instead of "set").
> I think it's more readable.

To be clear ... having two different function calls is a brand
new proposal.  :)

Agreed on readable, and I do recall the problem.  If I can't get
the __bitwise annotation to behave, that's how I'll do it.

- 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/