linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] gpiolib: add hogs support for machine code

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CACRpkdbbCKkzCq1S86OTwjrZ4SQFFPAg92qgbzt2U2QaqEwZaw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 May 2018 13:51:09 +0200
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] gpiolib: add hogs support for machine code

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 6:42 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote:
> 2018-04-26 14:07 GMT+02:00 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>:
>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 10:30 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote:
>>
>>> Board files constitute a significant part of the users of the legacy
>>> GPIO framework. In many cases they only export a line and set its
>>> desired value. We could use GPIO hogs for that like we do for DT and
>>> ACPI but there's no support for that in machine code.
>>>
>>> This patch proposes to extend the machine.h API with support for
>>> registering hog tables in board files.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
>>> ---
>>> v1 -> v2:
>>> - kbuild bot complains about enum gpiod_flags having incomplete type
>>>   although it builds fine for me locally: change the type of dflags
>>>   to int
>>
>> I like the idea and thinking behind this patch, so patch applied.
>>
>> It's a bit of code to carry, so if it doesn't see any use, I will simply
>> revert it :)
>>
>> But I bet you intend to follow up with some machine patches
>> and then it is immediately worth it.
>
> Yes, I'll be submitting patches removing the legacy gpio calls for
> boards in mach-davinci.

Awesome, thanks!

(I guess they should all be converted to device tree though, hope that
will happen...)

Yours,
Linus Walleij