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  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]
Date:	Mon, 1 Sep 2014 09:46:54 +0200
From:	Dirk Behme <>
To:	Mark Brown <>
CC:	Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <>,
	Liam Girdwood <>,
	Gokulkrishnan Nagarajan <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: core: GPIO #0 is a valid GPIO

On 29.08.2014 21:01, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:19:16PM +0400, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov wrote:
>> From: Dirk Behme <>
>> With GPIO #0, this if statement will always fail. Remove this, the
>> check for gpio_is_valid() is sufficent here.
> No, read the archives

Could you kindly give us a pointer to the relevant thread in the archive?

> this will break boards using zero as default.
> Any current boards should be using DT and so shouldn't be using fixed
> GPIO numbers in the first place which will mean they'll not end up
> getting zero as a valid GPIO.

Hmm? What's wrong with a DT entry

<&gpio1 0 0>;

for ena_gpio resulting in zero as a valid GPIO?

> If you are using zero as a GPIO for some
> reason provide a way to specify that the GPIO is a real GPIO and not
> just the default value for the struct.

Do you want to say that GPIO #0 (<&gpio1 0 0>;) isn't a valid GPIO for 

I wonder how this fits to

"GPIOs are identified by unsigned integers in the range 0..MAX_INT"

"If you want to initialize a structure with an invalid GPIO number, use
some negative number (perhaps "-EINVAL");"


Best regards

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists