linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] gpio: add support to get local gpio number

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: <20191129074524.dipo37u6lv7vzfhc@pengutronix.de>
Date:   Fri, 29 Nov 2019 08:45:24 +0100
From:   Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To:     Marco Felsch <m.felsch@...gutronix.de>
Cc:     Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        linux-devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Support Opensource <support.opensource@...semi.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensource@...semi.com>,
        kernel@...gutronix.de, Adam.Thomson.Opensource@...semi.com,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] gpio: add support to get local gpio number

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 01:49:42PM +0100, Marco Felsch wrote:
> On 19-11-28 11:46, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > śr., 27 lis 2019 o 14:59 Marco Felsch <m.felsch@...gutronix.de> napisał(a):
> > >
> > > Sometimes consumers needs to know the gpio-chip local gpio number of a
> > > 'struct gpio_desc' for further configuration. This is often the case for
> > > mfd devices.
> > >
> > 
> > We already have this support. It's just a matter of exporting it, so
> > maybe adjust the commit message to not be confusing.
> 
> Therefore I mentioned the consumers.
> 
> > That being said: I'm not really a fan of this - the whole idea of gpio
> > descriptors was to make them opaque and their hardware offsets
> > irrelevant. :(
> 
> I know therefore I added a driver local helper but this wasn't the way
> Linus wanted to go..
> 
> > > Signed-off-by: Marco Felsch <m.felsch@...gutronix.de>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c        |  6 ++++++
> > >  include/linux/gpio/consumer.h | 10 ++++++++++
> > >  2 files changed, 16 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> > > index 104ed299d5ea..7709648313fc 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> > > @@ -4377,6 +4377,12 @@ int gpiod_count(struct device *dev, const char *con_id)
> > >  }
> > >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(gpiod_count);
> > >
> > > +int gpiod_to_offset(struct gpio_desc *desc)
> > 
> > Maybe call it: gpiod_desc_to_offset()?
> 
> The function name is proposed by Linus too so Linus what's your
> oppinion?

INAL (I'm not a Linus) but I wonder what the 'd' in gpiod stands for.
Assuming it already meand "desc" I'd prefer gpiod_to_offset.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |