linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv3 0/7] gpio: extend basic_mmio

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:	Wed, 4 May 2011 08:43:26 -0600
From:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
To:	Jamie Iles <jamie@...ieiles.com>
Cc:	Anton Vorontsov <cbouatmailru@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux@....linux.org.uk,
	tglx@...utronix.de, arnd@...db.de, nico@...xnic.net,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 0/7] gpio: extend basic_mmio_gpio for different controllers

Can you repost as a proper series please?  Don't force me to muck
about with attachments.

g.

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Jamie Iles <jamie@...ieiles.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 03:31:31PM +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
>> On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 12:09:39PM +0100, Jamie Iles wrote:
>> > On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 02:34:15AM +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
>> > > On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 11:04:08PM +0100, Jamie Iles wrote:
>> > > [...]
>> > > > The advantage that Grant's proposal has though is that the user can
>> > > > override the gpio_chip callbacks.  When I tried porting over some
>> > > > existing ARM platforms, one of the blocking issues was that lots of
>> > > > platforms had some annoying small detail that was slightly different
>> > > > (such as doing muxing in the _get() callback or needing a to_irq
>> > > > callback).
>> > > >
>> > > > If we make bgpio_chip public and return that from bgpio_probe
>> > > > unregistered then the calling code can override some of the methods then
>> > > > register the gpio_chip.
>> > >
>> > > Oh, that makes sense, right.
>> >
>> > I've just given this a try and it largely works, but it's probably
>> > better if we allow bgpio_chip to be embedded in other structures.  For
>> > example, the langwell driver has a gpio_to_irq callback that we would
>> > need to get the IRQ base for the bank.  We could add a void *priv member
>> > to bgpio_chip but that doesn't feel quite right.
>> >
>> > So,
>> >     int bgpio_init(struct bgpio_chip *bgc, struct device *dev,
>> >                    unsigned long sz, void __iomem *dat, ...)
>> >
>> > rather than a probe() that returns the bgpio_chip?
>>
>> Sounds good to me.
>
> OK, so here's what I've got so far (patches attached).  I've updated the
> basic_mmio_gpio library with your initial lkml patch and updated it to
> allow bgpio_chip to be embedded in another structure.  I've also
> attempted to convert over the bt8xx and langwell drivers but they're a
> little rough around the edges in places (and untested as I don't have
> the hardware).
>
> Jamie
>



-- 
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
--
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/