linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 23/23] Documentation: gpio: add documentation for gpio-mockup

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAMRc=MeBL7opS6wBO1nEesHJg8Yv_GR0xxRae3mtQ2xj=eBOGg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Sep 2020 18:08:14 +0200
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-gpio <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-doc <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 23/23] Documentation: gpio: add documentation for gpio-mockup

On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:23 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Andy,
>
> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 4:14 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 03:49:23PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 2:22 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > > <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 02:06:15PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > > Yes it is.  Or at least until you fix all existing users so that if you
> > > > do change it, no one notices it happening :)
> > > >
> > >
> > > Then another question is: do we really want to commit to a stable ABI
> > > for a module we only use for testing purposes and which doesn't
> > > interact with any real hardware.
> > >
> > > Rewriting this module without any legacy cruft is tempting though. :)
> >
> > Another thought spoken loudly: maybe it can be unified with GPIO aggregator
> > code? In that case it makes sense.
>
> You want to aggregate GPIOs out of thin air?
>
> From DT, that would be something like
>
>     gpios = <&gpio1 2>, <0>, <0>, <&gpio2, 5>;
>
> ?
>
> For writing into ".../new_device", we could agree on something like "0"
> means not backed by an existing GPIO?
>

I'm really not sure this makes any sense. Why complicate an otherwise
elegant module that is gpio-aggregator with functionalities that
obviously don't belong here? I want to add various parameters that
would affect the way the simulated chips work - this really doesn't
need to go into the aggregator.

Bart