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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Mon, 13 Jan 2014 12:15:07 +0000
From:	Laszlo Papp <lpapp@....org>
To:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.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 9:48 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> wrote:
> 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.

OK.

>> 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?

Well, since we need to make sure that our product rocks and rolls, me
and my employer would need be committed for a quite while, but I can
understand where you are coming from.

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

Yes, it is difficult, especially for a C++/OOP person like me... I am
trying to do my best.

>> 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.

OK, thanks.
--
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/