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 16:05:32 +0100
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <>
Cc:     Rob Herring <>,
        Mark Rutland <>,
        Linus Walleij <>,
        Peter Rosin <>,
        linux-i2c <>,
        devicetree <>,
        "" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] eeprom: at24: write-protect pin support

2017-12-20 16:00 GMT+01:00 Andy Shevchenko <>:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski <> wrote:
>> 2017-12-20 11:21 GMT+01:00 Andy Shevchenko <>:
>>> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski <> 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 <>
>>> 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.
> I meant to do something like
> ...->wp_gpio = devm_gpiod_get_optional(...);
> if (IS_ERR(...))
>   return ...;
> So, note that the first is occupied only one line.
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko

Oh, now I get it.

It doesn't fit into 80 characters if we use &client->dev as the first
argument, but I see that client->dev is used extensively in probe() so
we could probably use a separate struct device *dev helper variable
for that. I'll note it for future refactoring that will happen soon. I
prefer that this patch stays as it is though.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists