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: <CAMRc=Mea4pGbW+fY3mCWfNSSqo9ZwaJxx2C0JmstnQOc8eVrLg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Sep 2020 13:01:02 +0200
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-doc <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/23] gpio: mockup: pass the chip label as device property

On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 6:48 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 05:45:37PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
> >
> > While we do check the "chip-name" property in probe(), we never actually
> > use it. Let's pass the chip label to the driver using device properties
> > as we'll want to allow users to define their own once dynamically
> > created chips are supported.
> >
> > The property is renamed to "chip-label" to not cause any confusion with
> > the actual chip name which is of the form: "gpiochipX".
> >
> > If the "chip-label" property is missing, let's do what most devices in
> > drivers/gpio/ do and use dev_name().
>
> Just wondering if we have a documentation in kernel how this mockup mechanism
> works and what kind of properties it uses.
>
> Side note: moving to software nodes would make some advantages in future such
> as visibility properties and their values (not yet implemented, but there is an
> idea to move forward).

Seems like we're implicitly using software nodes already:
fwnode_create_software_node() is called when adding device properties.

Bart

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ