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:   Fri, 23 Dec 2016 11:00:13 +0100
From:   Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To:     Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>
Cc:     Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
        Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>,
        Patrick Titiano <ptitiano@...libre.com>,
        Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: misc: add a generic regulator driver

Hi Lars,

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de> wrote:
> On 12/06/2016 12:12 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>> We're already using libiio to read the measured data from the power
>> monitor, that's why we'd like to use the iio framework for
>> power-cycling the devices as well. My question is: would bridging the
>> regulator framework be the right solution? Should we look for
>> something else? Bridge the GPIO framework instead?
>
> I wouldn't necessaries create bridge, but instead just use the GPIO
> framework directly.
>
> We now have the GPIO chardev interface which meant to be used to support
> application specific logic that control the GPIOs, but where you don't want
> to write a kernel driver.
>
> My idea was to add GPIOs and GPIO chips as high level object inside libiio
> that can be accessed through the same context as the IIO devices. Similar to
> the current IIO API you have a API for gpios that allows to enumerate the
> GPIO devices and their pins as well as modify the pin state.

That would mean libiio has access to all GPIOs, allowing a remote person
to not only control through iiod the GPIOs for industrial control, but also the
GPIOs not intended for export, right?

Having a separate GPIO switch driver avoids that, as DT (or some other means)
can be used to specify and label the GPIOs for IIO use.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

Powered by blists - more mailing lists