linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] regulator: core: Still free GPIOs using gpio

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:	Tue, 1 Jul 2014 13:27:17 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>
Cc:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: core: Still free GPIOs using gpio_free()

On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 09:24:22PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 9:11 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:

> > Huh, good point (though it still seems a bit neater to match up the
> > request and release functions I guess).  Linus?

> Yeah it's a nice habit to free the GPIOs using the same interface as
> the one used to obtain them. Although if we are to allow the regulator
> framework to request GPIO through both the integer and descriptor
> interfaces, we certainly don't want to track that information forever.

> On top of that we want to limit the use of gpio_to_desc() and
> desc_to_gpio() in drivers as much as possible, so I'd say I prefer to
> see gpiod_free() used no matter where the GPIO came from.

Right, but Linus said we didn't need this conversion to descriptors so
I'm a bit confused as to what the issue he was raising was.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)