linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] pinctrl: to avoid duplicated calling enable_pinmux

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 03 Jun 2014 22:59:32 -0600
From:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To:	FanWu <fwu@...vell.com>
CC:	"linus.walleij@...aro.org" <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	"tony@...mide.com" <tony@...mide.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"swarren@...dia.com" <swarren@...dia.com>,
	Chao Xie <cxie4@...vell.com>, Yilu Mao <ylmao@...vell.com>,
	Ning Jiang <njiang1@...vell.com>,
	Xiaofan Tian <tianxf@...vell.com>,
	Fangsuo Wu <fswu@...vell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] pinctrl: to avoid duplicated calling enable_pinmux_setting
 for a pin

On 06/03/2014 07:28 PM, FanWu wrote:
> On 06/04/2014 12:49 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 06/03/2014 01:37 AM, fwu@...vell.com wrote:
>>> From: Fan Wu <fwu@...vell.com>
>>>
>>> What the patch did:
>>> 1.To call pinmux_disable_setting ahead of pinmux_enable_setting in
>>> each time of
>>>    calling pinctrl_select_state
>>> 2.Remove the HW disable operation in in pinmux_disable_setting function.
>>> 3.Remove the disable ops in struct pinmux_ops
>> ...
>>> Signed-off-by: Fan Wu <fwu@...vell.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>
>>
>> As I mentioned in my previous email, I didn't sign this off. I made some
>> suggestions for a better alternative in that email.
>>
>> If I *had* written that s-o-b, then it should be before yours in the
>> patch description since you handled the patch last.
>>
> 
> The Signed-off didn't bother me.
> I will Choose your option 2# and thanks for your suggestion about this :)
> 
> 
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/pinctrl/pinmux.h
>>> b/include/linux/pinctrl/pinmux.h
>>
>>> @@ -70,8 +70,6 @@ struct pinmux_ops {
>>>                     unsigned * const num_groups);
>>>       int (*enable) (struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev, unsigned
>>> func_selector,
>>>                  unsigned group_selector);
>>> -    void (*disable) (struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev, unsigned
>>> func_selector,
>>> -             unsigned group_selector);
>>
>> This will cause a compile failure, since many drivers still set the
>> .disable function pointer. You need to update all the driver files to
>> remove those functions too. There's quite a bit of code in some of those
>> functions, so you'd need the relevant driver maintainers to confirm it's
>> OK to remove it. I think only the owners of pinctrl-egra and
>> pinctrl-single have ack'd this concept so far.
>>
> 
> For this part, I think I mentioned this before, simply removing disable
> ops will introduce the compiling error.
> I think there are several ways to handle this:
> 1. Don't remove the disable ops in struct pinmux_ops in this patch but
> to remove the disable ops in struct pinmux_ops after the another patch
> is merged, which is used to remove all of the disable ops user in all
> drivers.
> 2. Just remove the disable ops in pinmux_ops in this patch, and make a
> another patch ASAP to remove all the disable ops user in all drivers.
> 3. Remove the disable ops in struct pinmux_ops and remove all the
> disable ops user in all drivers, all in this patch.
> 
> 
> For the solution 2, I just think it may be not a good way to include so
> much content in a patch, which are not in a same code level.
> 
> I am just inclined to use solution 1# or 3#.

I would expect option 3.

--
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/