linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v1 2/3] gpio: Add support for TPS68470 GPIOs

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:   Mon, 12 Jun 2017 09:17:38 +0000
From:   "Mani, Rajmohan" <rajmohan.mani@...el.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@....fi>
CC:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        "Alexandre Courbot" <gnurou@...il.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        "Len Brown" <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v1 2/3] gpio: Add support for TPS68470 GPIOs

Hi Andy, Sakari,

> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] gpio: Add support for TPS68470 GPIOs
> 
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 7:50 PM, Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@....fi> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 04:40:16PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >> On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@....fi> wrote:
> 
> >> > Again, I'm not really worried about this driver, but the ACPI
> >> > tables. How does the difference show there?
> >>
> >> Same way. You will have common numbering over the chip [0, 9]. It
> >> will be just an abstraction inside the driver.
> >
> > Oh, in that case that should be a non-issue.
> 
> >> Above states the opposite, so, it's clear to me that abstraction of 2
> >> GPIO chips over 1 can be utilized here.
> >
> > Sounds fine to me, taken that this does not add complications to ACPI
> > tables.
> 
> They just need to share the same ACPI_HANDLE (it might require to do this in
> generic way in gpiolib) and have a continuous numbering (easy to achieve with
> carefully chosen bases).
> 

Few clarifications...

Are you implying new kernel changes are needed in gpiolib to accommodate 2 GPIO chips?
Does it need changes in platform firmware or is it expected to work just with the gpiolib changes that you described above?

Thanks
Raj