linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] hwmon: (max6650) Add support for gpiodef

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAOMwXhM1Xi=UqpmKNDsOnQLXKo1o+65TZi6AkBk4Ds9wuXSaWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 19 Nov 2013 16:42:49 +0000
From:	Laszlo Papp <lpapp@....org>
To:	Marcus Folkesson <marcus.folkesson@...il.com>
Cc:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, hjk@...sjkoch.de,
	lm-sensors@...sensors.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hwmon: (max6650) Add support for gpiodef

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Marcus Folkesson
<marcus.folkesson@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> This is just one use case of those, you could also use it for
>> non-generic gpio functionality, like alarm, "full-on", internal clock,
>> external clock, etc. I believe it is always a bit tricky with MFD. I
>> personally prefer to put it into the chip driver because this is not
>> clearly a generic gpio interface here, and I need to drive it
>> dynamically.
>
> I agree.
>
> I think the solution with expose the "GPIOs" in sysfs is the right way to
> go.
> The chip-function is of a dynamic nature and should therefor not be set in
> platform data / devicetree.
>
> As mentioned before, GPIOs should use the gpio subsystem whenever possible,
> but the the gpio-functionality is just a subset of
> functions these pins may be set to.
>
> Also, the I think the *real* reason why the entries is called "gpio" is that
> it is so the registers are are mentioned in the datasheet.
> Everyone that is working with the device will know what it is all about.
> I see it more as an register expose than a gpio interface...
>
> I agree that the entries does not really fit here. But they does not fit
> better elsewhere either.
> And I don't think they fit worse than the alarm-entries that is already in
> mainline.
>
> Anyway, I think the documentation file should mention what function each
> valid value represent.

Yes, makes sense to make the documentation more comprehensive. Thanks.

Any other issues from anyone before submitting a polished version?
--
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/