linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 08/10] gpio: Add gpio driver for Actions OWL S900 SoC

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]

Message-ID: <aa4ce18d-fd83-c7f1-22fc-59538881ea51@suse.de>
Date:   Wed, 21 Feb 2018 23:38:33 +0100
From:   Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        刘炜 <liuwei@...ions-semi.com>,
        mp-cs@...ions-semi.com, 96boards@...obotics.com,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>,
        amit.kucheria@...aro.org,
        linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        hzhang@...obotics.com, bdong@...obotics.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/10] gpio: Add gpio driver for Actions OWL S900 SoC

Am 21.02.2018 um 20:13 schrieb Andy Shevchenko:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam
> <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org> wrote:
>> Add gpio driver for Actions Semi OWL family S900 SoC. Set of registers
>> controlling the gpio shares the same register range with pinctrl block.
>>
>> GPIO registers are organized as 6 banks and each bank controls the
>> maximum of 32 gpios.
> 
>> +static void owl_gpio_set_reg(void __iomem *base, unsigned int pin, int flag)
>> +{
>> +       u32 val;
>> +
>> +       if (flag) {
>> +               val = readl(base);
>> +               val |= BIT(pin);
>> +               writel(val, base);
>> +       } else {
>> +               val = readl(base);
>> +               val &= ~BIT(pin);
>> +               writel(val, base);
>> +       }
>> +}
> 
> Why not to use the same pattern as below?
> 
> readl()
> if ()
>  ...
> else
> ...
> writel()
> 
> ?

And shouldn't that be readl_relaxed() and writel_relaxed()?

Regards,
Andreas

-- 
SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)