linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] get pinctrl more flexible for per pin muxing controllers

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]

Date:	Wed, 10 Jun 2015 08:14:50 -0600
From:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>
CC:	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@...el.com>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] get pinctrl more flexible for per pin muxing controllers

On 06/10/2015 01:33 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com> wrote:
>> Le 04/05/2015 10:56, Ludovic Desroches a écrit :
>>>
>>> The way pins, groups and functions are tied is too constraining for some
>>> controllers. It concerns mainly the ones we don't care about groups and
>>> functions, each pin can be muxed to any functions.
>>> The goal of these two patches is too remove some of the constraints.
>>>
>>> I have added the prototype of a pin controller and device tree to show the
>>> way I want to use these changes. I couldn't test it on boards using generic
>>> pinconf so I am not sure that I don't break something...
>>>
>>>
>>> Ludovic Desroches (4):
>>>    pinctrl: change function behavior for per pin muxing controllers
>>>    pinctrl: introduce complex pin description
>>
>> Linus,
>>
>> Ludovic sent this series nearly one month ago. It was posted after a RFC
>> series on the same topic two months ago. As we don't see any comment on
>> neither of them we assume that it's okay to include them.
>
> It's a quite big patch and I need help reviewing it and thinking of
> some possible consequences.
>
> Stephen, can you give me a hand with this?

I don't have the patch in my list archive, which goes back 60 days.

Judging purely by the patch description, the patch sounds incorrect. 
There's nothing in pinctrl that prevents a particular pin controller 
from supporting all mux functions on all pins or groups. Simply return 
the same list of functions for every pin.
--
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/