linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] pio: add arch specific gpio_is

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: <159882.19856.qm@web180315.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Date:	Mon, 6 Sep 2010 23:33:43 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
To:	Ryan Mallon <ryan@...ewatersys.com>
Cc:	Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
	Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	bn@...sdigital.com, avictor.za@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pio: add arch specific gpio_is_valid() function

--- On Mon, 9/6/10, Ryan Mallon <ryan@...ewatersys.com> wrote:

> How about this approach instead?

Still don't like it, sorry.  gpio_is_valid()
is not intended as a fine-grained call, there is
a call which is fine grained; use that instead.

> ----
> On some architectures gpio numbering does not start from zero.

But on all of them, zero is a valid GPIO number.
It could get dynamically allocated someday...

 Allow for
> correct behaviour of gpio_is_valid

I'd say it's already correct ... what's not
correct is expecting to validate the *active* set
of GPIOs (some dynamically allocated) through
that, instead of one of the GPIO setup calls
like gpio_request, which have explicit guarantees
of reporting errors for GPIO numbers which are
not usable on the target board.

 on values below the
> first gpio by
> adding the architecture overrideable ARCH_FIRST_GPIO.

What are you (?) doing that it even matters
to a driver  which GPIOs are built into the SOC
versus external?  Caring about arch-specific
stuff at this level is a big thought-bug...

And  I'd ask why you're ignoring or bypassing
the error reporting from gpio_request() ...

That is, just what are you doing that makes
you want gpio_is_valid() to include error checks
you are supposed to get via gpio_request as part
of GPIO configuration?

--
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/