linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/11] gpiolib: introduce devm_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: <20190913181402.GB237523@dtor-ws>
Date:   Fri, 13 Sep 2019 11:14:02 -0700
From:   Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/11] gpiolib: introduce devm_fwnode_gpiod_get_index()

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:48:13AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:52 AM Dmitry Torokhov
> <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> > devm_fwnode_get_index_gpiod_from_child() is too long, besides the fwnode
> > in question does not have to be a child of device node. Let's rename it
> > to devm_fwnode_gpiod_get_index() and keep the old name for compatibility
> > for now.
> >
> > Also let's add a devm_fwnode_gpiod_get() wrapper as majority of the
> > callers need a single GPIO.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
> 
> The patch is good because this is in line with Rusty Russells API
> manifesto:
> 
> 7. The obvious use is (probably) the correct one.
> 6. The name tells you how to use it.
> 
> It doesn't apply to my "devel" branch as of now:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linusw/linux-gpio.git/log/?h=devel
> 
> If you rebase this and the next patch and send them separately I
> am willing to apply them already for v5.4 to easy your refactoring
> work during the v5.5 cycle here, provided we try to fix up the old users
> ASAP and delete the compatibility fallbacks in the near future.

Done.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry