linux-kernel - Re: [linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 04/14] pinctrl: sunxi: v3: really introduce support for V3

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: <ef0c3061986b7456605a61f835f2a2003cf4c678.camel@bootlin.com>
Date:   Mon, 18 Mar 2019 12:05:12 +0100
From:   Paul Kocialkowski <paul.kocialkowski@...tlin.com>
To:     icenowy@...c.io, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com>
Cc:     devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        linux-sunxi@...glegroups.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Jagan Teki <jagan@...rulasolutions.com>,
        linux-clk@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 04/14] pinctrl: sunxi: v3: really
 introduce support for V3

Hi,

Le mardi 12 mars 2019 à 23:45 +0800, Icenowy Zheng a écrit :
> 
> 于 2019年3月12日 GMT+08:00 下午11:36:54, Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com> 写到:
> > On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 11:22:46PM +0800, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
> > > Introduce the GPIO pins that is only available on V3 (not on V3s) to
> > the
> > > V3 pinctrl driver.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@...c.io>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sun8i-v3.c | 291
> > +++++++++++++++++++++--
> > >  drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.h    |   2 +
> > >  2 files changed, 275 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sun8i-v3.c
> > b/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sun8i-v3.c
> > > index 6704ce8e5e3d..54c210871a95 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sun8i-v3.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sun8i-v3.c
> > > @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
> > >  /*
> > > - * Allwinner V3s SoCs pinctrl driver.
> > > + * Allwinner V3/V3s SoCs pinctrl driver.
> > >   *
> > >   * Copyright (C) 2016 Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@...c.xyz>
> > >   *
> > > @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
> > >  
> > >  #include "pinctrl-sunxi.h"
> > >  
> > > -static const struct sunxi_desc_pin sun8i_v3s_pins[] = {
> > > +static const struct sunxi_desc_pin sun8i_v3_v3s_pins[] = {
> > 
> > I'm not sure all that remaining is worth it to be honest. It adds a
> > lot of noise for no particular reason (and the same goes for renaming
> > the file itself)
> 
> Maybe keeping names is okay "for historial reasons".
> 
> In fact I want to keep them.

My two cents about this: kernel development is plagued by the unability
to rename and rework things as soon as backward compatibility is
involved. I believe that renaming and reworking things is quite a good
thing to do when it leads to a situation that is easier to understand
and makes more sense.

In this case, I don't see any blockers that would prevent us from doing
this, so I am strongly in favor of it. I really don't see how increased
noise and "historical reasons" make up for better clarity.

Cheers,

Paul

> > Maxime
> 
> -- 
> 使用 K-9 Mail 发送自我的Android设备。
> 
-- 
Paul Kocialkowski, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com