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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 10:37:50 +0800 From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> To: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org> Cc: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>, Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>, Rhyland Klein <rklein@...dia.com>, Marc Dietrich <marvin24@....de>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>, linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 3/5] net: rfkill: gpio: remove gpio names On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org> wrote: > On 03/04/2014 06:43 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: >> If I understand the situation correctly it's like ACPI does not have named >> GPIOs so keeping specifying this in DT GPIO bindings is counter-productive >> to the work of abstracting the access to GPIO handlers so that drivers >> need not know whether ACPI or DT is used for describing the hardware. > > For devices that already have both ACPI and DT bindings, we can't > pretend they can be the same; they are already potentially different. We > simply need to parse DT and ACPI differently, since that's the sway > their bindings are defined. > > For any devices that don't have both ACPI and DT bindings, I agree we > should certainly strive to make any new bindings aligned so we don't > have to deal with this for them. > > However, we can't change the past. Yeah, right, so for this very driver there are no bindings defined (yet) and the only device tree I can find referencing it is the Tegra20-paz00 and it just use gpios = <>; So in this case I think this patch is the right way forward, but I admit I'm really uncertain in the general case. 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists