linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] leds/of: leds-gpio.c: Use gpio_get_value

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 8 Sep 2011 18:35:44 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Richard Purdie <rpurdie@...ys.net>,
	Trent Piepho <xyzzy@...akeasy.org>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] leds/of: leds-gpio.c: Use gpio_get_value_cansleep()
 when initializing.

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 16:39:52 -0700 David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com> wrote:

> I get the following warning:
> 
> ------------[ cut here ]------------
> WARNING: at drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c:1559 __gpio_get_value+0x90/0x98()
> Modules linked in:
> Call Trace:
> [<ffffffff81440950>] dump_stack+0x8/0x34
> [<ffffffff81141478>] warn_slowpath_common+0x78/0xa0
> [<ffffffff812f0958>] __gpio_get_value+0x90/0x98
> [<ffffffff81434f04>] create_gpio_led+0xdc/0x194
> [<ffffffff8143524c>] gpio_led_probe+0x290/0x36c
> [<ffffffff8130e8b0>] driver_probe_device+0x78/0x1b0
> [<ffffffff8130eaa8>] __driver_attach+0xc0/0xc8
> [<ffffffff8130d7ac>] bus_for_each_dev+0x64/0xb0
> [<ffffffff8130e130>] bus_add_driver+0x1c8/0x2a8
> [<ffffffff8130f100>] driver_register+0x90/0x180
> [<ffffffff81100438>] do_one_initcall+0x38/0x160
> 
> ---[ end trace ee38723fbefcd65c ]---
> 
> My GPIOs are on an I2C port expander, so we must use the *_cansleep()
> variant of the GPIO functions.  This is was not being done in
> create_gpio_led().
> 
> We can change gpio_get_value() to gpio_get_value_cansleep() because it
> is only called from the platform_driver probe function, which is a
> context where we can sleep.
> 
> Only tested on my gpio_cansleep() system, but it seems safe for all
> systems.
>
> ...
>
> --- a/drivers/leds/leds-gpio.c
> +++ b/drivers/leds/leds-gpio.c
> @@ -121,7 +121,7 @@ static int __devinit create_gpio_led(const struct gpio_led *template,
>  	}
>  	led_dat->cdev.brightness_set = gpio_led_set;
>  	if (template->default_state == LEDS_GPIO_DEFSTATE_KEEP)
> -		state = !!gpio_get_value(led_dat->gpio) ^ led_dat->active_low;
> +		state = !!gpio_get_value_cansleep(led_dat->gpio) ^ led_dat->active_low;
>  	else
>  		state = (template->default_state == LEDS_GPIO_DEFSTATE_ON);
>  	led_dat->cdev.brightness = state ? LED_FULL : LED_OFF;

gpio_get_value() is an architecture-specific function whereas
gpio_get_value_cansleep() is not.  Hence all architectures will now be
forced to use the same code.  Why is this OK?

Asides:

The duplication of code between __gpio_get_value() and
gpio_get_value_cansleep() is daft.

The comment over gpio_get_value_cansleep() sucks mud rocks.
--
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/