linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] eeprom: at24: write-protect pin support

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:   Wed, 20 Dec 2017 13:41:51 +0100
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>,
        linux-i2c <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] eeprom: at24: write-protect pin support

2017-12-20 11:21 GMT+01:00 Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote:
>> AT24 EEPROMs have a write-protect pin, which - when pulled high -
>> inhibits writes to the upper quadrant of memory (although it has been
>> observed that on some chips it disables writing to the entire memory
>> range).
>>
>> On some boards, this pin is connected to a GPIO and pulled high by
>> default, which forces the user to manually change its state before
>> writing. On linux this means that we either need to hog the line all
>> the time, or set the GPIO value before writing from outside of the
>> at24 driver.
>>
>> This series adds support for the write-protect pin split into two
>> parts. The first patch extends the relevant binding document, while
>> the second modifies the at24 code to pull the write-protect GPIO
>> low (if present) during write operations.
>>
>
> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
>
> A one totally minor nit: if it possible now to have one line where
> devm_gpiod_get_optional() is called?
> You may ignore this nit anyway.
>

Hi Andy,

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean here. I do use
devm_gpiod_get_optional() in patch 2/2.

Thanks,
Bartosz