linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] gpio: of_get_named_gpio_flags() return -EPROBE

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4FDF5A10.5080706@antcom.de>
Date:	Mon, 18 Jun 2012 18:40:48 +0200
From:	Roland Stigge <stigge@...com.de>
To:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
CC:	cjb@...top.org, grant.likely@...retlab.ca, rob.herring@...xeda.com,
	rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk, ulf.hansson@...ricsson.com,
	linus.walleij@...aro.org, linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, aletes.xgr@...il.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com, lrg@...com, perex@...ex.cz,
	tiwai@...e.de, alsa-devel@...a-project.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: of_get_named_gpio_flags() return -EPROBE_DEFER
 if GPIO not yet available

On 06/18/2012 05:45 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>> Should be easy to fix (replacing the if (... == -ENODEV) to -EPROBE_DEFER.
>>>>
>>>> Will you provide patches as signalled, of should I? Which branch would
>>>> be the correct one to build on top?
>>>
>>> I'm happy either way. It'd probably be best to roll the change into your
>>> patch/series so you can manage all the dependencies in one series, but
>>> if you can't for some reason, I'm happy to provide a patch for this.
>>
>> I should be able ;-) - is broonie's sound.git, branch for-next the
>> correct one to patch against?
> 
> Yes, that's the one. Thanks.

I'm posting this as a series of 2 for the sound changes only. Would be 
easiest to merge separately via sound/for-next, and the gpiolib-of 
change via gpio. However, this could break bisecting.

Since the respective precondition commits are only in the sound tree, 
this would be the only one practical for merging a single combined 
patch (combining those 3). Would this be OK for the GPIO maintainers? 
It's practically only a one-line change in gpiolib-of.c that would come 
in via sound.

Thanks in advance,

Roland


PS: Just for illustration purposes for the sound maintainers:
---
 drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.c |    5 ++++-
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.c
+++ linux-2.6/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.c
@@ -62,7 +62,10 @@ static int of_gpiochip_find_and_xlate(st
 int of_get_named_gpio_flags(struct device_node *np, const char *propname,
                            int index, enum of_gpio_flags *flags)
 {
-       struct gg_data gg_data = { .flags = flags, .out_gpio = -ENODEV };
+       /* Return -EPROBE_DEFER to support probe() functions to be called
+        * later when the GPIO actually becomes available
+        */
+       struct gg_data gg_data = { .flags = flags, .out_gpio = -EPROBE_DEFER };
        int ret;

        /* .of_xlate might decide to not fill in the flags, so clear it. */
--
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/