linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] gpio: regmap: Support few IC specific operations

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: <CAHp75VdbomvbAY42Bje7F8qjWfgeSnU8i2ULJRXpYKA+oTmwrg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 21 May 2021 14:19:49 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
Cc:     Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>,
        Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-power <linux-power@...rohmeurope.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] gpio: regmap: Support few IC specific operations

On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 1:19 PM Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc> wrote:
>
> Am 2021-05-21 12:09, schrieb Andy Shevchenko:
> > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 12:53 PM Matti Vaittinen
> > <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com> wrote:
> >> Changelog v2: (based on suggestions by Michael Walle)
> >>   - drop gpio_regmap_set_drvdata()
> >
> > But why do we have gpio_regmap_get_drvdata() and why is it different
> > now to the new member handling?
>
> Eg. the reg_mask_xlate() callback is just passed a "struct
> gpio_regmap*".
> If someone needs to access private data there, gpio_regmap_get_drvdata()
> is used. At least that was its intention.
>
> Thus I was also suggesting to use "struct gpio_regmap*" in the newer
> callbacks.
>
> I don't get what you mean by "different to the new member handling"?

Currently we have a symmetrical API that is getter and setter against
a certain field.
Now this change drops the setter and introduces some other field somewhere else.
Sounds to me:
 - either this has to be split into two changes with explanation of
what's going on
 - or something odd is happening here which I do not understand.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko