linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] usb: cp210x: Add ioctl for GPIO support

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: <20120502215226.GD27281@kroah.com>
Date:	Wed, 2 May 2012 14:52:26 -0700
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	Preston Fick <pffick@...il.com>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
	preston.fick@...abs.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] usb: cp210x: Add ioctl for GPIO support

On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 09:49:01PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Actually, why can't you use the GPIO subsystem for something like this?
> > Can't you export your device as both a usb-serial device and a gpio
> > device and have things work properly that way?
> 
> You still need the ioctls even then in order to discover the gpio
> numbers

What discovery?  The device knows what gpio values it has in it, and
should be able to register those with the gpio subsystem.

> and having done that youi've got potential races with unload
> when you try and open them. You've also got permissions considerations
> and synchronization between gpio and data problems.

That can be handled in the driver itself, if it really is a problem (the
existing patch sure didn't handle any of that at all, so I'm guessing
either it wasn't considered, or it isn't a problem.)

> It's not a good way to go. It might make sense in some platforms to
> expose them as both but its not a good general model.

Why isn't the gpio subsystem a good general model?  I thought that is
what it was created to solve?

> I'm currently favouring adding some 'additional control line' bits to
> termiox.

Yes, but that's only good for usb-serial devices that also have gpio
pins on the controller side.  Which seems pretty limited to me.

If I have a userspace program, and I want to use GPIO, I shouldn't have
to care/know that the pins are really on the end of a USB->serial
bridge, or somewhere hanging off of a SOC, the same userspace api should
"just work", right?

Or am I missing something really obvious here?

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/