linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/20] pinctrl: Record a pin owner, not mux function, when requesting pins

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: <CACRpkdYCkRrvt+2B2nzAR+4XTeZo=N+OVA49TuExHCwsLAExwg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 20 Feb 2012 22:15:21 +0100
From:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>
Cc:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>, B29396@...escale.com,
	s.hauer@...gutronix.de, dongas86@...il.com, shawn.guo@...aro.org,
	thomas.abraham@...aro.org, tony@...mide.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/20] pinctrl: Record a pin owner, not mux function, when
 requesting pins

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:45 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com> wrote:

> When pins are requested/acquired/got, some device becomes the owner of
> their mux setting. At this point, it isn't certain which mux function
> will be selected for the pin, since this may vary between each of the
> device's states in the pinctrl mapping table. As such, we should record
> the owning device, not what we think the initial mux setting will be,
> when requesting pins.
>
> This doesn't make a lot of difference right now since pinctrl_get gets
> only one single device/state combination, but this will make a difference
> when pinctrl_get gets all states, and pinctrl_select_state can switch
> between states.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>

Mostly a rename then, OK...

> @@ -66,19 +65,14 @@ static int pin_request(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
>                goto out;
>        }
>
> -       if (!function) {
> -               dev_err(pctldev->dev, "no function name given\n");
> -               return -EINVAL;
> -       }
> -

Why should it be allowed to have a NULL owner? There is a
debug print involving it above but ... maybe this is over-cautious?

Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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/