linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/9] gpio-exar/8250-exar: Do not even instantiate a GPIO device for Commtech cards

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]

Date:   Wed, 31 May 2017 21:02:27 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-serial@...r.kernel.org" <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sudip Mukherjee <sudip.mukherjee@...ethink.co.uk>,
        Sascha Weisenberger <sascha.weisenberger@...mens.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/9] gpio-exar/8250-exar: Do not even instantiate a
 GPIO device for Commtech cards

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 7:34 PM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com> wrote:
> On 2017-05-30 20:33, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com> wrote:
>>> Commtech adapters need the MPIOs for internal purposes, and the
>>> gpio-exar driver already refused to pick them up. But there is actually
>>> no point in even creating the underlying platform device.
>>
>> It still feels that partially you may do stuff here, like
>> renaming to
>> __xr17v35x_register_gpio()
>> and creating
>> xr17v35x_register_gpio() wrapper.
>
> Sorry, that remains unrelated to the topic of this patch and would be
> unclean. If you want me to pull those refactorings out of patch 9, I
> need to write a separate patch - no problem.

Okay, I would go with separate patch, if maintainers are okay with
this approach.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko