linux-kernel - Re: [Patch v5 2/2] gpio: Document GPIO hogging mechanism

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: <54B3A1B0.1010005@broadcom.com>
Date:	Mon, 12 Jan 2015 11:28:00 +0100
From:	Arend van Spriel <arend@...adcom.com>
To:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
CC:	Benoit Parrot <bparrot@...com>,
	"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
	"Maxime Ripard" <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
	Jiri Prchal <jiri.prchal@...ignal.cz>,
	Pantelis Antoniou <panto@...oniou-consulting.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch v5 2/2] gpio: Document GPIO hogging mechanism

On 01/12/15 11:20, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 9:07 PM, Benoit Parrot<bparrot@...com>  wrote:
>
>> Add GPIO hogging documentation to gpio.txt
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Benoit Parrot<bparrot@...com>
>> Reviewed-by: Alexandre Courbot<acourbot@...dia.com>
>
> This is starting to look good ...
>
>> +               line_b {
>> +                       gpio-hog;
>> +                       gpios =<6 0>;
>> +                       state = "output-low";
>
> I don't like the state string.
>
> Instead have boolean properties for all states.
>
> line_b {
>      gpio-hog;
>      gpios =<6 0>;
>      output-low;
>      line-name = "foo-bar-gpio";
> }
>
> Then use of_property_read_bool() in the code to check which
> state is to be selected intially. You can check that no mutually
> exclusive state are selected, I don't like that an arbitrary string
> select the state like that, if we do it that way an enumerator would
> be better, I prefer bools.

To avoid the mutual exclusive state checking, would it not be more 
straightforward to use numeric enum values defined in boot/dts/include.

Regards,
Arend

> 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/

--
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/