linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] gpio: MAX6650/6651 support

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: <CACRpkdbpXCns4Z+AiFuijnvLJ91ZgMjiwmZZLJ0owKW1Sr-+xw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 13 Jan 2014 10:48:01 +0100
From:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:	Laszlo Papp <lpapp@....org>
Cc:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] gpio: MAX6650/6651 support

On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Laszlo Papp <lpapp@....org> wrote:

> I was giving a second thought to this. Would it be acceptable to add
> the gpio driver now, and once the need arises, add the pinctrl thin
> layer on top of it?

I will not accept the platform data setting the pull-ups.

> My concern is that I would not use anything else
> than the gpio functionality of these pins. It would be a needless
> additional work (i.e. investment) for my project and employer.

But you are still expecting me as a subsystem maintainer to
take responsibility of this driver for as long as I have this role?

Rewriting code is a natural part of the community process,
noone claimed it would be easy ;-)

> Perhaps, the layer on top of that can be added later without any
> drawback if anyone ever finds the need to have more functionality
> supported by these pins?

Your driver already supports setting the pulls using a
*custom* platform data field. This is not OK, and shall be
implemented using the pin control subsystem. I will not
merge drivers using custom platform data fields like this.

The reason that the pin control subsystem even existed was
that at the time my drivers were NACKed because I tried to
shoehorn pin control into the GPIO subsystem, and as a
result now we have an apropriate subsystem for it, so please
use it.

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/