| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <201409151850.34472.arnd@arndb.de> Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 18:50:34 +0200 From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> To: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com> Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>, Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>, Ning Li <ning.li@...el.com>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] gpio: Increase ARCH_NR_GPIOs to 512 On Monday 15 September 2014, Mika Westerberg wrote: > Some newer Intel SoCs, like Braswell already have more than 256 GPIOs > available so the default limit is exceeded. Instead of adding more > architecture specific gpio.h files with custom ARCH_NR_GPIOs we increase > the gpiolib default limit to be twice the current. > > Signed-off-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com> > --- > Changes to previous version is that now we increase the common limit > instead of adding x86 specific gpio.h Can you please include the reasoning for this decision in the changeset description? I'm sure you have your reasons, but from the text above, it sounds like a rather bad idea. What other architectures are impacted by this, and what is the kernel size cost for it on those architectures? Arnd -- 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