linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3 4/5] spi: s3c64xx: Added provision for dedicated cs pin

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: <CAKrE-KevVramLc1n_9kcfHVb=RKT_kexQ8iUP-5+BL3wxpMPbQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 8 Apr 2013 17:15:26 +0530
From:	Girish KS <girishks2000@...il.com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc:	spi-devel-general@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	Tomasz Figa <t.figa@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 4/5] spi: s3c64xx: Added provision for dedicated cs pin

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Mark Brown
<broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 03:21:03PM +0530, Girish KS wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Mark Brown
>
>> > It's also a bit odd that we end up checking cs_gpio and then using line
>> > in the code, it'd be more idiomatic if cs_gpio were the GPIO number.
>
>> In the original driver it was assumed that the cs line is always a gpio pin.
>> But the current controller that i am working on has no gpio pin for cs
>> selection.
>> All the lines to the device are internally connected. There is no
>> option to select
>> the cs signal. So cs-gpio property parsing has to skipped for this
>> controller, that means
>> cs_gpio cannot be a GPIO number. If it has to be a number then it has
>> to be < 0 to say
>> it is not gpio. Any >= 0 number implies it is a valid gpio (in reality
>> for this controller it is not.)
>
> Two options here, one is to just assume nobody will use GPIO 0 and the
> other is to set the number appopriately during probe so that only probe
> needs to worry about the issue.

regarding the first option, may be others also should agree to it (in
case if somebody is
using the gpio 0).
In the second option if the gpio number is set in the probe, then we
are overwriting the
actual gpio number assigned in the platform data.
If I move the cs_gpio from the platform data to controller private
data then the dependency
on other platforms can be removed, but still the check (true or false)
before setting the gpio
line will remain. If agreed upon this i can go ahead and post the patch
--
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/