linux-kernel - Re: GPIO bindings guidelines (Was: Re: [PATCH v5 10/12] gpio: Support for unified device properties interface)

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]

Message-ID: <20141022085140.GF1484@lahna.fi.intel.com>
Date:	Wed, 22 Oct 2014 11:51:40 +0300
From:	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	Bryan Wu <cooloney@...il.com>,
	Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: GPIO bindings guidelines (Was: Re: [PATCH v5 10/12] gpio:
 Support for unified device properties interface)

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:33:32AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 22 October 2014 11:10:44 Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > 
> > It expects that GPIOs returned from _CRS are in specific order. Since we
> > can't change these existing ACPI tables, we must support them somehow.
> > 
> > This patch series handles it so that:
> > 
> >   1) If we can't find given property (e.g "reset-gpios" or
> >      "shutdown-gpios") the index above will refer directly to the GPIO
> >      resource returned from _CRS.
> > 
> >   2) If the property is found we ignore index and take it from the
> >      property instead.
> > 
> > This has the drawback that we cannot support this:
> > 
> >         Package () { "reset-gpios", Package () { ^GPIO, 0, 0, 0, ^GPIO, 1, 0, 0}}
> >                                                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > So the second entry in the above is not accessible using
> > gpiod_get_index() and the reason is that we want to support the existing
> > and new ACPI tables where _DSD is not being used.
> 
> So this is not using the DT binding but does thing slightly differently then.
> In this case (supporting two incompatible bindings for DT and ACPI), I think
> the only sensible driver implementation would be to know what we are asking
> for and use different devm_gpiod_get_index statements based on the firmware
> interface.

Yes something like that is probably needed.

Alternatively (I didn't try if this works) we could do it so that
when we see:

	gpio = devm_gpiod_get_index(&pdev->dev, "shutdown", 1);

we check first for the property ("shutdown-gpios"), and check if it has
more than one entry in the value, like:

	Package () { "reset-gpios", Package () { ^GPIO, 0, 0, 0, ^GPIO, 1, 0, 0}}

and in that case return the second entry. If we find this instead:

	Package () { "reset-gpios", Package () { ^GPIO, 0, 0, 0 }}

we just ignore the index.

Last if there is no _DSD the index refers directly to the GPIO resource
in _CRS.

This would support both _DSD and non-_DSD at the same time but it makes
the implementation more complex.
--
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/