linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/11] net: phylink: switch to using fwnode_gpiod_get

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: <20190911094619.GN2680@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 11 Sep 2019 12:46:19 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/11] net: phylink: switch to using
 fwnode_gpiod_get_index()

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:39:14AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 12:25:14PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 12:52:08AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > Instead of fwnode_get_named_gpiod() that I plan to hide away, let's use
> > > the new fwnode_gpiod_get_index() that mimics gpiod_get_index(), bit
> > > works with arbitrary firmware node.
> > 
> > I'm wondering if it's possible to step forward and replace
> > fwnode_get_gpiod_index by gpiod_get() / gpiod_get_index() here and
> > in other cases in this series.
> 
> No, those require a struct device, but we have none.  There are network
> drivers where there is a struct device for the network complex, but only
> DT nodes for the individual network interfaces.  So no, gpiod_* really
> doesn't work.

In the following patch the node is derived from struct device. So, I believe
some cases can be handled differently.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko