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  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]
Date:   Thu, 21 Mar 2019 11:23:30 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <>
To:     Mika Westerberg <>
Cc:     zhuchangchun <>,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: intel: Implements gpio free function

On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 10:44:20AM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 10:35:24AM +0800, zhuchangchun wrote:
> > When we use the gpio to control some peripheral devices,and try to
> > export the gpio first,then unexport the gpio, we test the signal with
> > oscilloscope,and find the signal can't meet the requirements,because
> > after we unexported the gpio,the gpio's register(tx and rx)value can't
> > be recovered,and this will infruence the device work flow.
> After you unexport GPIO it can go back to any previous mode it was. If
> you need to use it as GPIO then why unexport it in the first place?

...and on top of that GPIO sysfs interface is deprecated.

> > We check the gpio's unexport code work flow, then find the gpio's free
> > hook function has not been implemented, After we add pinmux_ops' free
> > function to set exported gpio to recover its original value,the problem
> > is fixed.
> I don't think this is what ->free callback should do (assuming we decide
> to implement it since we don't implement ->release either). It is
> supposed to reverse effects of ->request which is what it currently does ;-)


With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Powered by blists - more mailing lists