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:   Fri, 9 Nov 2018 18:03:23 +0100
From:   Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc:     Bamvor Jian Zhang <bamv2005@...il.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] gpio: mockup: fix indicated direction

Hello Bartosz,

On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 04:24:10PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> pt., 9 lis 2018 o 15:39 Uwe Kleine-König
> <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de> napisał(a):
> > On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 02:53:16PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > pt., 9 lis 2018 o 14:10 Uwe Kleine-König
> > > <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de> napisał(a):
> > > > Which test failed exactly?
> > >
> > > All gpioinfo tests that check the output of this command and expect to
> > > see input as line direction.
> >
> > This wasn't the answer I expected. The background of my question was:
> > This failing test seems to expect that a given GPIO is an input. If that
> > expectation already exists after the gpio is only requested, then the
> > test is broken and a fix is necessary there.
> 
> The test is only expected to work with gpio-mockup which is a dummy
> testing module. I believe its behavior should be as deterministic as
> possible to the point where newly created chips always have the same
> direction.

Given that the initial direction of a GPIO isn't fixed in my eyes the
test should be able to cope with both possibilities. I'd say it's a bug
in the test if it doesn't.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ