linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: intel: Implement intel_gpio_get

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:   Tue, 06 Mar 2018 16:59:28 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Javier Arteaga <javier@...tex.com>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: intel: Implement intel_gpio_get_direction
 callback

On Tue, 2018-03-06 at 16:56 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-03-06 at 14:31 +0000, Javier Arteaga wrote:

> > > +static int intel_gpio_get_direction(struct gpio_chip *chip,
> > > unsigned int offset)
> > > +{

> > > +	if (padcfg0 & PADCFG0_PMODE_MASK)
> > > +		return -EINVAL;
> 
> Actually we might return direction of GPIO function while pin is in
> some
> other mode, though it would probably make not much sense in practice.

One more though, this is a call back for GPIO function anyway, so, above
condition should never happen. I think it's safe to remove it
completely.

> > > +
> > > +	return !!(padcfg0 & PADCFG0_GPIOTXDIS);
> > > +}


-- 
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy