linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/6] pinctrl: single: Prepare for supporting SoC specific features

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CACRpkdbx+vJEqz3KQ0EHGt0axRB4JeJh3FF4e+7snbR0HoqKRg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:55:16 +0200
From:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...vell.com>
Cc:	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...com>,
	Prakash Manjunathappa <prakash.pm@...com>,
	Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...aro.org>,
	Linux-OMAP <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	Roger Quadros <rogerq@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] pinctrl: single: Prepare for supporting SoC specific features

On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com> wrote:

> Hi Linus W,
>
> Any comments on the pinctrl patches 3 - 5 in this series?

I have no problems with this patch #3, as it is just changing syntax,
not semantics.

The problems start with patch #4.

I am tormented with mixed feelings about this, because from one point of
view I feel it is breaking the promise of pinctrl-single being a
driver for platforms
where a pin is controlled by a *single* register.

If this was pinctrl-foo.c I would not have been so much bothered,
but now it is something that was supposed to be self-contained and
simple, pertaining to a single register, starting to look like something
else.

This is a bit like: "oh yeah just one register controls the pins, but under
some circumstances I also want to mess with this register over here,
and then this register over there ..." etc.

I'd like Haojian to ACK this to proceed since he's also using this driver
now. Then I feel better on continuing down this road ...

Then I have a lesser comment on patch #4 since it makes it possible
for this pin controller to support wake-up interrupt, as I don't see how
this plays out with front-end GPIO controllers, but let's discuss that
in the context of that patch.

Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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/