linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] pinctrl: remove slew-rate parameter from tz1090

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: <51C99AB5.1080002@imgtec.com>
Date:	Tue, 25 Jun 2013 14:27:17 +0100
From:	James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>
To:	Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>
CC:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] pinctrl: remove slew-rate parameter from tz1090

On 25/06/13 14:21, Heiko Stübner wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 25. Juni 2013, 15:05:05 schrieb James Hogan:
>> Hi Heiko,
>>
>> On 25/06/13 13:56, Heiko Stübner wrote:
>>> As the binding for slew-rate is under discussion and seems to need
>>> more tought it will get removed for now, so it doesn't get an offical
>>
>> s/tought/thought/
>> s/offical/official/
>>
>>> release.
>>>
>>> Therefore remove it again from the only current user, tz1090.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>
>>> ---
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tz1090-pdc.c
>>> b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tz1090-pdc.c index 12e4808..d4f12cc 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tz1090-pdc.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tz1090-pdc.c
>>> @@ -809,11 +809,6 @@ static int tz1090_pdc_pinconf_group_reg(struct
>>> pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
>>>
>>>  		*width = 1;
>>>  		*map = tz1090_pdc_boolean_map;
>>>  		break;
>>>
>>> -	case PIN_CONFIG_SLEW_RATE:
>>> -		*shift = REG_GPIO_CONTROL2_PDC_SR_S;
>>> -		*width = 1;
>>> -		*map = tz1090_pdc_boolean_map;
>>> -		break;
>>>
>>>  	case PIN_CONFIG_DRIVE_STRENGTH:
>>>  		*shift = REG_GPIO_CONTROL2_PDC_DR_S;
>>>  		*width = 2;
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tz1090.c
>>> b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tz1090.c index 02ff3a2..4edae08 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tz1090.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tz1090.c
>>> @@ -1834,11 +1834,6 @@ static int tz1090_pinconf_group_reg(struct
>>> pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
>>>
>>>  		*width = 1;
>>>  		*map = tz1090_boolean_map;
>>>  		break;
>>>
>>> -	case PIN_CONFIG_SLEW_RATE:
>>> -		*reg = REG_PINCTRL_SR;
>>> -		*width = 1;
>>> -		*map = tz1090_boolean_map;
>>> -		break;
>>>
>>>  	case PIN_CONFIG_DRIVE_STRENGTH:
>>>  		*reg = REG_PINCTRL_DR;
>>>  		*width = 2;
>>
>> I don't see the harm in keeping the handling of PIN_CONFIG_SLEW_RATE,
>> since PIN_CONFIG_SLEW_RATE is still present and you only seem to be
>> removing the device tree bindings (which is the only important bit from
>> the DT ABI point of view).
> 
> I'm partial to this :-)
> 
> My thoughts were that this code would never be reached when the parsing was 
> removed and to not cause confusion to the driver when an acceptable binding 
> was found for slew-rate.
> 
> But it of course also doesn't hurt to stay in.

Okay, fair enough.

Acked-by: James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>

Cheers
James

--
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/