linux-kernel - Re: [RFC, PATCH 1/3] gpiodev

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: <f17812d70704101730x601eaa2cr96fe3502ceb20a0f@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 11 Apr 2007 08:30:45 +0800
From:	"Eric Miao" <eric.y.miao@...il.com>
To:	"Paul Sokolovsky" <pmiscml@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 1/3] gpiodev - API definitions

it looks ok, but I have several questions:

1. why should we bind this to platform_device, what if the gpio device
is not actually a "platform_device", say, a I2C device, a SPI device or
even a USB device?

2. I still doubt the benefit of using of a structure for a gpio, isn't a gpio
number not enough?

3. If one is going to use a GPIO, he has to initialize a "struct gpio"
before that, how is he suppose to know the value for "gpio->gpio_dev"?

4. how can we optimize to a direct register access instruction (e.g.
to GPDR in PXA) for bit-banging operation (pardon me, I don't exactly
remember the name for such operation, maybe bit-banging)
-
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/