linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ARM: sa1100: Initialize gpio after gpio subsystem has been initialized

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CACRpkdYrTCRaeXjjEOripqtqhC-ndqTrht6cByCMBw_iVLsC5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 3 Apr 2016 18:35:15 +0200
From:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: sa1100: Initialize gpio after gpio subsystem has
 been initialized

On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 10:04:57AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:

>> > Please ignore/drop this patch - a better (cleaner) fix is in the works
>> > for gpiolib.
>>
>> This delivers though. I tested it on my also regressing iPAQ.
>>
> I am a bit concerned that the gpio initialization was that early on purpose,
> and that by moving it we might miss some use cases. I did not find any, but that
> doesn't mean that there are none. Without knowing _why_ the initialization was
> that early, I would prefer not to touch the code if it can be avoided.

I think we'll go for the other patch to gpiolib. It seems much more clean
and generic to support this kind of cases.

Yours,
Linus Walleij