linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4 resend] [x86] Add generic GPIO support to x86

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: <200802221651.31216.david-b@pacbell.net>
Date:	Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:51:30 -0800
From:	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
To:	cbouatmailru@...il.com
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...ecomint.eu>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4 resend] [x86] Add generic GPIO support to x86

On Friday 22 February 2008, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> > +static inline int gpio_request(unsigned gpio, const char *label)
> > +{
> > +     return -EINVAL;
> 
> Could we return -ENOSYS instead, so drivers will able to distinguish
> between "something really failed" and "there is no gpio support,
> fallback to other methods"? Without this, the notorious NAND driver
> will hardly benefit from this change. ;-)

Sure; that'll be gpio_request() and the gpio_direction_*() calls only
though, since those are the initial setup calls drivers make.

- 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/