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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 20:02:17 -0800 From: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net> To: Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org> 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>, "eric miao" <eric.y.miao@...il.com>, Kevin Hilman <khilman@...sta.com>, Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>, Ben Dooks <ben@...nity.fluff.org> Subject: Re: [patch/rfc 2/4] pcf857x I2C GPIO expander driver On Thursday 06 December 2007, Jean Delvare wrote: > Also, I don't quite see what > is supposed to make compatibility with the legacy drivers easier, nor > how, not why it matters in the first place. There's a clear either/or disjunction. No fuzzy/confusing middle ground. > > +static int pcf857x_get8(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset) > > +{ > > + struct pcf857x *gpio = container_of(chip, struct pcf857x, chip); > > + s32 value; > > + > > + value = i2c_smbus_read_byte(gpio->client); > > + return (value < 0) ? 0 : (value & (1 << offset)); > > This is no longer a boolean value, is that OK? I guess that it doesn't > matter but maybe it should be documented (what GPIO drivers are allowed > to return in these callback functions.) Already documented -- as zero/nonzero, the original boolean model for C. Anything else would be at least tristate, not boolean. :) > > + /* Let platform code set up the GPIOs and their users. > > + * Now is the first time anyone can use them. > > + */ > > + if (pdata->setup) { > > + status = pdata->setup(client, > > + gpio->chip.base, gpio->chip.ngpio, > > + pdata->context); > > + if (status < 0) > > + dev_err(&client->dev, "%s --> %d\n", > > + "setup", status); > > Shouldn't this be degraded to dev_warn? The probe still succeeds. Or > keep dev_err but make the probe fail (in which case you'll probably > want to swap this block of code with the dev_info above.) Good point. > The rest looks fine to me. Thanks for the comments. I'll send this in with the next batch of gpiolib patches. - 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