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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 10:08:12 +0300 From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com> To: David Cohen <david.a.cohen@...ux.intel.com> Cc: Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...ux.intel.com>, linus.walleij@...aro.org, gnurou@...il.com, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] gpio/pinctrl: baytrail: move gpio driver from pinctrl to gpio directory On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:45:35AM -0700, David Cohen wrote: > Hi Mathias, > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 01:35:43PM +0300, Mathias Nyman wrote: > > On 13.10.2014 22:17, David Cohen wrote: > > > Even though GPIO module on Intel Bay Trail is able to control pin > > > functionality, it's unlikely Linux kernel driver will ever support it > > > since BIOS should handle all pin muxing itself. > > > > > > Currently this driver does not register any pinctrl interface and > > > doesn't call any pinctrl interface. It just uses on internal functions > > > the 'struct pinctrl_gpio_range', which is a weak justification to not be > > > under gpio directory. > > > > > > > This discussion was held when gpio-baytrail was first submitted. > > These threads explain the gpio/pinctrl-baytrail history: > > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=136981432427668&w=2 > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=137113578604763&w=2 > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=137155497023054&w=2 > > Thanks for pointing that out. > > > > > A proper pinctrl driver for baytrail is still not yet ruled out > > Having it inside pinctrl directory is creating some confusion because > ppl expect it to implement the actual pinctrl interface. A typical pinctrl driver can implement both a pinctrl interface and a GPIO interface. So it is not uncommon to look the GPIO drivers under drivers/pinctrl/*. Furthermore the driver announces that it is a GPIO driver in its Kconfig entry: config PINCTRL_BAYTRAIL bool "Intel Baytrail GPIO pin control" so I don't quite get why this would confuse people. We are also planning to add more Intel pinctrl (real) drivers in the future. drivers/pinctrl/intel/* should be the place where people find the pinctrl/GPIO drivers for newer Intel hardware. > Anyway, the threads above are over 1 year old. Perhaps it was making > sense during that time, but unless somebody is working on pinctrl > interface now, IMHO we're misplacing the driver for too long. It'd > better to move this driver to gpio directory and when/if pinctrl > interface is implemented, we move it back to current place. I disagree. What happens when people and distros have CONFIG_PINCTRL_BAYTRAIL=y and now the symbol is changed to something else? For one, it will break the existing working configs. -- 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