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  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, 7 Oct 2014 13:40:21 +0300
From:	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	Bryan Wu <cooloney@...il.com>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/13] gpio: Support for unified device properties
 interface

On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 07:22:13PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
> > From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
> >
> > Some drivers need to deal with only firmware representation of its
> > GPIOs. An example would be a GPIO button array driver where each button
> > is described as a separate firmware node in device tree. Typically these
> > child nodes do not have physical representation in the Linux device
> > model.
> >
> > In order to help device drivers to handle such firmware child nodes we
> > add dev[m]_get_named_gpiod_from_child() that takes a child firmware
> > node pointer as its second argument (the first one is the parent device
> > itself), finds the GPIO using whatever is the underlying firmware
> > method, and requests the GPIO properly.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> 
> ...
> 
> > +/* Child properties interface */
> > +struct gpio_desc *dev_get_named_gpiod_from_child(struct device *dev, void *child,
> > +                                                const char *propname, int index);
> > +struct gpio_desc *devm_get_named_gpiod_from_child(struct device *dev, void *child,
> > +                                                 const char *propname, int index);
> 
> I see the reason for these functions and am not opposed to them.
> However, I wonder if we could not replace propname by a con_id that
> would be resolved to one of con_id-gpio for DT and whatever naming
> convention ACPI is using?

The code in gpio-leds.c and gpio_keys_polled.c refers to "gpios" as the
property name. If we can change that somehow to work with con_id-gpio
instead without breaking things, then why not.

> This would prevent users to name GPIOs outside of the conventions
> defined in the bindings and be generally safer. Is there a particular
> reason (used by some old code?) for the current direct property
> access? If not, maybe we could call a slightly-modified of_find_gpio()
> to resolve the GPIO property for DT, and the equivalent function for
> ACPI?

Only reason I can think of is support for the existing properties that
are used directly. Drivers using gpiod_get() and friends do not need
dev_get_named_gpiod_from_child() anyway.
--
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