linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/12] Blackfin arch: Add label to call new GPIO API

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-Id: <200708171429.31971.david-b@pacbell.net>
Date:	Fri, 17 Aug 2007 14:29:31 -0700
From:	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
To:	"Hennerich, Michael" <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>
Cc:	"Mike Frysinger" <vapier.adi@...il.com>,
	"Bryan Wu" <bryan.wu@...log.com>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/12] Blackfin arch: Add label to call new GPIO API

On Friday 17 August 2007, Hennerich, Michael wrote:
> What Mike wants to point out is that a external IRQ is first a GPIO and
> needs to be configured like an INPUT GPIO and then a specific bit needs
> to be set unmask it as IRQ.
> 
> So why not use the GPIO infrastructure to setup this pin as GPIO?

My comments about the advantages of using that infrastructure
for *early* binding captured the key points ... it's "failfast".

For IRQs you're probably on decently firm ground, since it's
extremely rare that people not handle request_irq() errors.

Remember, I just pointed out that the "late fail" strategy
is unusual.  That doesn't mean it's wrong ... just it'll be
a bit of surprise, some cognitive dissonance to developers
picking up a Blackfin project, potentially more error prone.

- 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/