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: <45a44e480909181703l7b1ef8a1lf00fdd53aebfb523@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 19 Sep 2009 08:03:28 +0800
From:	Jaya Kumar <jayakumar.lkml@...il.com>
To:	Ben Nizette <bn@...sdigital.com>
Cc:	H Hartley Sweeten <hartleys@...ionengravers.com>,
	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpiolib: introduce for_each_gpio_in_chip macro

On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Ben Nizette <bn@...sdigital.com> wrote:
> 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.

Yes, you're right that there has been no major demand for it. There
are (luckily?) only a moderate number of devices that are using gpio
as their parallel bus interface. I've been supporting the batch-gpio
patchset below out-of-the-tree because it has come in handy with a few
e-paper display controllers and LCD 8080-IO that I've been developing
with.

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

I didn't pursue it further and have maintained it out-of-tree. I felt
that David had concerns about the API I implemented so it was unlikely
to get merged and I didn't have the motivation to implement another.
:-)

Thanks,
jaya

ps: I'm in Portland for the festival of linux conferences this week
and would be happy to work on this/discuss alternate APIs if it is of
interest.
--
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/