linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] gpiolib: Implement devm_gpio_request

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: <20120407090018.GC3099@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Date:	Sat, 7 Apr 2012 10:00:18 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
Cc:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] gpiolib: Implement devm_gpio_request_one()

On Fri, Apr 06, 2012 at 07:25:12PM -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 15:49:17 +0100, Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com> wrote:

> > Yeah, I couldn't understand why the non-managed functions were written
> > in this way so I followed the same pattern when I added the managed one
> > assuming that the original code was sane.

> Actually, I looked at it again, and the _one version behaves subtly
> different from the non-_one version.  That may be irrelevant though.

It always does a direction set, yes.  This will make a difference if the
direction call either fails or blocks future reconfigurations, what was
puzzling me was if this was an issue or not and like I say I decided to
assume it was and stick with the same pattern.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)