linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] pinctrl: core: print gpio in pins debugfs file

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHp75VeXiir4BYFTd3YrseExnLPg4MfD69koTkqf4_TKp7dsBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 22 Jul 2020 11:50:50 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Drew Fustini <drew@...gleboard.org>
Cc:     Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jason Kridner <jkridner@...gleboard.org>,
        Robert Nelson <robertcnelson@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] pinctrl: core: print gpio in pins debugfs file

On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 11:48 AM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 1:29 AM Drew Fustini <drew@...gleboard.org> wrote:
> >
> > If there is a gpio range mapping for the pin, then print out the gpio
> > chip and line index for the pin in the debugfs 'pins' file with the
> > format: "[line-index]:[gpio-label]"
> >
> > Here is an example output on the BeagleBoard.org PocketBeagle (AM3358):
> > /sys/kernel/debug/pinctrl/44e10800.pinmux-pinctrl-single/pins
> >
> > pin 25 (PIN25) 25:gpio-32-63 44e10864 00000037 pinctrl-single
> > pin 26 (PIN26) 26:gpio-32-63 44e10868 00000037 pinctrl-single
> > pin 27 (PIN27) 27:gpio-32-63 44e1086c 00000037 pinctrl-single
> > pin 28 (PIN28) 0:N/A 44e10870 00000036 pinctrl-single
> > pin 29 (PIN29) 0:N/A 44e10874 00000006 pinctrl-single

Though one more nit, I have just realized, perhaps '0:?' would be
better, because GPIO library uses '?' in cases of unknown labels or
so.
I guess no need to resend (but if you wish you may do, with my tag
included) and we may wait for Linus and Bart to comment.

> > pin 30 (PIN30) 28:gpio-32-63 44e10878 00000027 pinctrl-single
> > pin 31 (PIN31) 29:gpio-32-63 44e1087c 00000037 pinctrl-single
> > pin 32 (PIN32) 30:gpio-32-63 44e10880 00000037 pinctrl-single
> > pin 33 (PIN33) 31:gpio-32-63 44e10884 00000037 pinctrl-single
> > pin 34 (PIN34) 0:gpio-64-95 44e10888 00000037 pinctrl-single
> > pin 35 (PIN35) 1:gpio-64-95 44e1088c 00000037 pinctrl-single
> >
>
> This variant looks good enough to me, thanks! FWIW,
> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko