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]

Message-Id: <1249529480.16688.13.camel@ben-desktop>
Date:	Thu, 06 Aug 2009 13:31:20 +1000
From:	Ben Nizette <bn@...sdigital.com>
To:	H Hartley Sweeten <hartleys@...ionengravers.com>
Cc:	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jaya Kumar <jayakumar.lkml@...il.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] gpiolib: introduce for_each_gpio_in_chip macro

On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 20:48 -0400, H Hartley Sweeten wrote:

> 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?

Plenty of people seem to think so.  Personally I haven't seen a great
use case except "'coz I can", but if you've got one I'd love to hear.

Have you seen http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/1/25/10 ?  Donno what ended up
happening to that patchset..

	--Ben.


--
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/