linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: baytrail: show output gpio state correctly on Intel Baytrail

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:12:16 +0100
From:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:	Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>
Cc:	David Cohen <david.a.cohen@...ux.intel.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
	stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: baytrail: show output gpio state correctly on
 Intel Baytrail

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:15:20AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 02:26:32PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>>
>> > I also noticed that this is missing:
>> >
>> > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-baytrail.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-baytrail.c
>> > index e12e5b0..7db5ab9 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-baytrail.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-baytrail.c
>> > @@ -614,3 +614,9 @@ static int __init byt_gpio_init(void)
>> >  }
>> >
>> >  subsys_initcall(byt_gpio_init);
>> > +
>> > +static void __exit byt_gpio_exit(void)
>> > +{
>> > +       platform_driver_unregister(&byt_gpio_driver);
>> > +}
>> > +module_exit(byt_gpio_exit);
>>
>> But the Baytrail driver is not a loadable module, it is bool:
>>
>> config PINCTRL_BAYTRAIL
>>         bool "Intel Baytrail GPIO pin control"
>>         depends on GPIOLIB && ACPI && X86
>>
>> (...)
>>
>> So I guess it won't need handling for removal, as it can only
>> be compiled-in.
>
> you can still unbind it through sysfs, right ? The thing also already
> provides a ->remove() method anyway.

Yes you're right of course...

But another way to get rid of the dilemma is to set
.suppress_bind_attrs = true on the .driver field of the
device driver. The one can't unbind it through sysfs anymore.

        .driver = {
                .name   = "foo",
                .suppress_bind_attrs = true,
        },

So one of them need to be done.

I suspect this is a kind of common problem...

Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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/