linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] gpiolib: introduce for_each_gpio_in

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]

Date:	Tue, 4 Aug 2009 20:48:49 -0400
From:	"H Hartley Sweeten" <hartleys@...ionengravers.com>
To:	"David Brownell" <david-b@...bell.net>
Cc:	"Linux Kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] gpiolib: introduce for_each_gpio_in_chip macro

On Tuesday, August 04, 2009 2:14 PM, David Brownell wrote:
> On Friday 31 July 2009, H Hartley Sweeten wrote:
>> gpiolib: introduce for_each_gpio_in_chip macro
>> 
>> There are a number of places in gpiolib where all the gpio's handled by a
>> chip are walked thru using a for() loop.  This introduces a for_each_*
>> macro to clarify the code.
>
> I'd rather not.  There are four such loops, and these are
> really simple iterators.  Such a macro IMO just obfuscates,
> when it's just hiding such trivial index ops.
>
> NAK.

Ok.

For the record. The reason I sent this is I'm trying to work out an
extension to gpiolib that adds gpio_port_* access to the API.  Most
of the gpiolib drivers already the necessary logic since the raw I/O
is performed on the entire 'chip'.  The API just needs the extensions
added to request/free the port, set the direction and get/set the value.

Is this a worthwhile addition?

Regards,
Hartley
--
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/