linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND] pinctrl: intel: Turn Baytrail support to tristate

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:   Thu, 26 Jan 2017 11:19:31 +0200
From:   Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:     Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>,
        Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
        "linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...ux.intel.com>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] pinctrl: intel: Turn Baytrail support to tristate

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 09:55:36AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de> wrote:
> 
> > The pinctrl-baytrail driver builds just fine as a module so give
> > users this option.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
> > Cc: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
> > ---
> > This was discussed almost one year ago, with no clear conclusion, but
> > also no evidence that the driver can't be built as a module. Is there
> > any way to push this forward?
> 
> I see ACKs for this patch, but in my git I also have:
> 
> commit 360943a8d26265825025b88da32961bd9ad4f7c6
> pinctrl: baytrail: make it explicitly non-modular
> 
> Acked by Mika.

Heh, yeah we even removed possibility to unbind the driver with that
commit. Totally forgot that one.

> So which one is it going to be?

Good question. I'm fine with both but I would really like to get some
confirmation that turning the driver to module actually does not break
anything.

I have one Minnowboard MAX here but it does not do any ACPI magic for
GPIOs so testing on that one might not catch all possible issues.

> If this should be applied, the previous patch from Paul Gortmaker
> should be reverted first. Especially the runtime PM parts seem
> important to get back.

Runtime PM actually does not do anything - there is no way to power down
the GPIO controller in Baytrail.

> Then I want a patch reverting that and adding this tristate in one.

I agree + really good explanation in the changelog why this was done.