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  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:   Tue, 25 Jun 2019 15:38:59 +0200
From:   Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@...tlin.com>
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, alpawi@...zon.com
Cc:     Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...zon.com>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        "linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list\:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] pinctl: armada-37xx: fix for pins 32+

Hi,

> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 6:01 PM <alpawi@...zon.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Patrick Williams <alpawi@...zon.com>
>>
>> The 37xx GPIO config registers are only 32 bits long and
>> span 2 registers for the NB GPIO controller.  The function
>> to calculate the offset was missing the increase to the
>> config register.
>>
>> I have tested both raw gpio access and interrupts using
>> libgpiod utilities on an Espressonbin.
>>
>> The first patch is a simple rename of a function because
>> the original name implied it was doing IO itself ("update
>> reg").  This patch could be dropped if undesired.
>>
>> The second patch contains the fix for GPIOs 32+.

First you can add my
Acked-by: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@...tlin.com>

Then as the second patch is a fix, you should add the fix tag: "Fixes:
5715092a458c ("pinctrl: armada-37xx: Add gpio support") " as well as the
'CC: <stable@...r.kernel.org>" tags.

But your change in the first patch made this second patch more difficult
to backport.

Actually, when I wrote "_update_reg" I was thinking to the update of the
variable, whereas with a function named "_calculate_reg" I am expecting
having the result as a return of the function.

However I am not against your change, as I pointed my main concern is
about the backport of the patch to the stable branch.

Maybe you could change the order of those 2 patches?

Thanks,

Gregory

>
> This looks good overall. I am waiting for a maintainer review.
> If nothing happens in a week, poke me and I'll just apply
> the patches.
>
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

-- 
Gregory Clement, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://bootlin.com

Powered by blists - more mailing lists