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  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, 20 Oct 2017 18:54:15 +1030
From:   Andrew Jeffery <>
To:     Linus Walleij <>
Cc:     "" <>,
        Jonathan Corbet <>,
        Joel Stanley <>,
        Ryan Chen <>,
        Rob Herring <>,
        Frank Rowand <>,
        Charles Keepax <>,
        Laxman Dewangan <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,,
        "" <>,
        OpenBMC Maillist <>,
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] gpio: gpiolib: Add core support for maintaining
 GPIO values on reset

On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 09:17 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 5:37 AM, Andrew Jeffery <> wrote:
> > GPIO state reset tolerance is implemented in gpiolib through the
> > addition of a new pinconf parameter. With that, some renaming of helpers
> > is done to clarify the scope of the already existing
> > gpiochip_line_is_persistent(), as it's now ambiguous as to whether that
> > means on suspend, reset or both.
> Isn't it most reasonable to say persistance covers both cases, reset
> and/or sleep? This seems a bit like overdefined.

I definitely had some internal debate about that. I erred on the side of
avoiding potential change in expectations for the arizona. If you consider that
overdefined then I'm happy to go the other way.

> So can we say that is this flag is set, the hardware and driver should
> do its best to preserve the value across any system disruptions.
> We can change the wording of course, patches welcome for that.


> But do we really need to distinguish the cases of disruption and
> whether we cover up for them or not?
> I would say we can deal with that the day we have a system with
> two register bits (or similar) where you can select to preserve across
> sleep, reset, one or the other, AND there is also a usecase such that
> a user wants to preserve the value across reset but not suspend or
> vice versa.
> I suspect that will not happen.

A very reasonable approach.

Cheers for the feedback.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (802 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists