linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2] gpio: brcmstb: support gpio-line-names property

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: <CAMpxmJX40tfNUqrqDwa+GEGAD9QuLym=jLi2MPuQX-FZS2Z9sQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 Mar 2020 09:22:47 +0100
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
To:     Doug Berger <opendmb@...il.com>
Cc:     Gregory Fong <gregory.0xf0@...il.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
        linux-gpio <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        arm-soc <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] gpio: brcmstb: support gpio-line-names property

śr., 11 mar 2020 o 20:03 Doug Berger <opendmb@...il.com> napisał(a):
>
> The label names are viewed as a convenience for the user and are not
> necessary for the proper functionality of the driver and device, so we
> don't want to prevent the driver from succeeding at probe due to an
> error in the gpio-line-names property. The bank->gc.names member is
> still made non-NULL which is what we really care about to prevent the
> misapplication of label names by devprop_gpiochip_set_names().
>
> In fact, it is expected that the device-tree will only include label
> strings up to the last GPIO of interest so the ENODATA error is
> considered a valid result to terminate any further labeling so there is
> no need for an error message in that case.
>
> Other error results are unexpected so an error message indicating the
> consequence of the error is appropriate here.
>
> I'm not sure which aspect is confusing to you, so it's not clear to me
> how best to comment the code. I can hazard a guess, but if you have a
> suggestion I'm happy to submit a v3.
>
> Thanks for taking the time to review this,
>     Doug

No it's fine, thank you for the explanation.

Bartosz