linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] regulator: core: GPIO #0 is a valid 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:	Wed, 3 Sep 2014 12:01:16 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dmitry_eremin@...tor.com>
Cc:	Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@...bosch.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	Gokulkrishnan Nagarajan <Gokulkrishnan.Nagarajan@...bosch.com>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: core: GPIO #0 is a valid GPIO

On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 01:04:13PM +0400, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov wrote:

> OK, if the question is about other users, should we review all current users
> that do not specify that gpio, change them to pass -1 and then allow valid
> GPIO#0 as a valid ena_gpio? What do you think about a patch
> that will warn for one or two releases that ena_gpio == 0 will change
> meaning in a forthcoming feature?

The warning is sensible (I'm sure we used to have one though I can't see
it in the git logs now) but I'm not sure a two release cycle is enough
for everyone to have upgraded and paid attention.

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