linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] net: mediatek: Explicitly include pinctrl headers

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, 5 Feb 2018 20:02:40 +0100
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: mediatek: Explicitly include pinctrl headers

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 6:59 PM, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com> wrote:

> Anyway, I think going with the pinctrl/devinfo.h include only is fine
> for now. If it turns out that the Mediatek ethernet and Rockchip LVDS
> drivers can just omit the bits fiddling with struct dev_pin_info, we can
> swap out the pinctrl/devinfo.h include for pinctrl/consumer.h at that
> time.
>
> LinusW: what are your thoughts on the struct dev_pin_info usage by these
> drivers? Does their code seem redundant to you, too?

I don't think they should use struct dev_pin_info at all,
that thing is for the device core only.

I like to think that <linux/pinctrl/consumer.h> is for drivers that
explicitly grab and control pin control states so this driver should
only include <linux/pinctrl/consumer.h>.

Torvalds: can you do it like that instead? Either way will
make the compile work again, we can also tidy it up later.
(i.e. I will grep for includes of pinctrl/dev_info.h and replace
it with consumer.h) at some point.

It wasn't pretty that these drivers were relying on implicit
#includes in the first place so either is anyway prettier than
what it used to look like.

In a way I kind of like this sideffect even if it broke some
compiles.

Yours,
Linus Walleij