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  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]
Date:   Mon, 14 Dec 2020 17:33:06 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <>
To:     Daniel Scally <>
Cc:     Laurent Pinchart <>,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/18] ipu3: Add driver for dummy INT3472 ACPI device

On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 10:48:39PM +0000, Daniel Scally wrote:
> On 01/12/2020 18:49, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >>>> +	table_entry = (struct gpiod_lookup)GPIO_LOOKUP_IDX(acpi_dev_name(adev),
> >>>> +							   ares->data.gpio.pin_table[0],
> >>>> +							   func, 0, GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH);
> >>>
> >>> You won't need this if you have regular INT3472 platform driver.
> >>> Simple call there _DSM to map resources to the type and use devm_gpiod_get on
> >>> consumer behalf. Thus, previous patch is not needed.
> >>
> >> How does the consumer (the camera sensor) retrieve the GPIO though ? The
> >> _DSM is in the PMIC device object, while the real consumer is the camera
> >> sensor.
> > 
> > 1. A GPIO proxy
> > 2. A custom GPIO lookup tables
> > 3. An fwnode passing to the sensor (via swnodes graph)
> > 
> > First may issue deferred probe, while second needs some ordering tricks I guess.
> > Third one should also provide an ACPI GPIO mapping table or so to make the
> > consumer rely on names rather than custom numbers.
> > 
> > Perhaps someone may propose other solutions.
> Hi Andy
> Sorry; some more clarification here if you have time please:

No problem, thanks for discussing this.

> 1. Do you mean here, register a new gpio_chip providing GPIOs to the
> sensors, and just have the .set() callback for that function set the
> corresponding line against the INT3472 device?

Yes. On one hand it should be a consumer (*gpiod_get*() family of APIs),
on the other it should be provider of known (artificial) GPIO chip.

> 2. I thought custom GPIO lookup tables was what I was doing, are you
> referring to something else?

I think so, i.e. nothing else from high point of view.

> 3. I guess you mean something like of_find_gpio() and acpi_find_gpio()
> here? As far as I can see there isn't currently a swnodes
> equivalent...we could just pass it via reference of course but it would
> mean the sensor drivers would all need to account for that.

Theoretically we may provide GPIOs as swnodes. In that case the consumer will
get them as usual But I think it may be too complicated / over engineered.

With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Powered by blists - more mailing lists