linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] gpio: omap: Honor "aliases" node

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: <20210308183704.GA2747088@robh.at.kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 8 Mar 2021 11:37:04 -0700
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:     Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@...il.com>,
        Linux-OMAP <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
        Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
        Santosh Shilimkar <ssantosh@...nel.org>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: omap: Honor "aliases" node

On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 05:21:23PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 2:18 AM Alexander Sverdlin
> <alexander.sverdlin@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> > Currently the naming of the GPIO chips depends on their order in the DT,
> > but also on the kernel version (I've noticed the change from v5.10.x to
> > v5.11). Honor the persistent enumeration in the "aliases" node like other
> > GPIO drivers do.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@...il.com>
> > ---
> > Yes, I noticed checkpatch "WARNING: DT binding docs and includes should be
> > a separate patch."
> > However, the parts below are tiny and barely make sense separately.
> 
> I've shut it down in the past because the instance ordering is a
> linuxism and the needs are in the Linux userspace somehow.
> It is different from a UART for example, which always need to
> be at the same place on any operating system, hence it has an
> alias.
> 
> For kernelspace the instance order should not matter, since
> all resources are obtained from the device tree anyway
> by phandle.

Thank you!

Can we remove the ones we have already for GPIO? 

BTW, It's been on my todo list for a while to start requiring 
documentation of alias names so we can reject new ones and get rid of 
some of the unused existing ones. Some platforms have numbered 
everything...

Rob