linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/10] Regulator ena

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAMRc=McApz-8qUo9SiqZgYXor4_DkBRY61nMhiFQ2QSSBj6gWg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 30 Nov 2018 09:35:09 +0100
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, lgirdwood@...il.com,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        ckeepax@...nsource.cirrus.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] Regulator ena_gpiod fixups

czw., 29 lis 2018 o 20:01 Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> napisał(a):
>
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 07:38:20PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>
> > I'm wondering if instead of using the non-devm variants of
> > gpiod_get_*() routines, we shouldn't provide helpers in the regulator
> > framework that would be named accordingly, for example:
> > regulator_gpiod_get_optional() etc. even if all they do is call the
> > relevant gpiolib function. Those helpers could then be documented as
> > passing the control over GPIO lines over to the regulator subsystem.
>
> > The reason for that is that most driver developers will automatically
> > use devm functions whenever available and having a single non-devm
> > function without any comment used in a driver normally using devres
> > looks like a bug. Expect people sending "fixes" in a couple months.
>
> I predict that people would then immediately start demanding devm_
> variants of that function...

At least we could document it in the code.

If I wouldn't know about the reason for not using devm and saw a stray
gpiod_get() without a corresponding put() I'd probably send a patch to
fix it, but if I saw something like regulator_gpiod_get(), I'd look at
what this routine does.

Matter of taste I guess, but I'd prefer the latter. At the very least
we could add a comment to each call saying that the regulator
framework will take care of that resource.

Bart