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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:46:54 -0800 From: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net> To: "eric miao" <eric.y.miao@...il.com> Cc: "Linux Kernel list" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Felipe Balbi" <felipebalbi@...rs.sourceforge.net>, "Bill Gatliff" <bgat@...lgatliff.com>, "Haavard Skinnemoen" <hskinnemoen@...el.com>, "Andrew Victor" <andrew@...people.com>, "Tony Lindgren" <tony@...mide.com>, "Jean Delvare" <khali@...ux-fr.org>, "Kevin Hilman" <khilman@...sta.com>, "Paul Mundt" <lethal@...ux-sh.org>, "Ben Dooks" <ben@...nity.fluff.org> Subject: Re: [patch/rfc 1/4] GPIO implementation framework On Tuesday 13 November 2007, David Brownell wrote: > So the point of these is to make it easier for platforms > (or even just boards) to make sure the GPIO number space > is densely packed, rather than loosely so? Paying about > 2KBytes for that privilege. (Assuming a 32 bit system > with 256 GPIOs.) > > I could see that being a reasonable tradeoff. I wouldn't > have started there myself, but you know how that goes! > > Does anyone else have any comments on that issue? Nobody else seems to have any comments on Eric's series of patches to add a gpio_desc layer ... whereas, I was looking at updating one platform, and got annoyed at some stuff that would have been non-issues with them in place! Eric, would you feel like rolling an all-in-one patch against the gpiolib support from 2.6.24-rc3-mm? Including updated versions of your patches: - [PATCH 2/5] define gpio_chip.requested_str (renaming it as "label" to match its usage) - [PATCH 3/5] use a per GPIO "struct gpio_desc" (but without that needless list; for debug, just scan the gpio_desc list for the next non-null chip) - [PATCH] move per GPIO "is_out" to "struct gpio_desc" (i.e. patch 4/5) - [PATCH 5/5] move per GPIO "requested" to "struct gpio_desc" (and "label" too) along with removing the ARCH_GPIOS_PER_CHIP symbol, and reducing ARCH_NR_GPIOS to a value which will waste less space by default? (Like maybe 256.) I think an all-in-one patch will be easier to review and agree on including (or not). - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists