linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] dt-bindings: gpio-mux-input: add documentation

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]

Date:   Wed, 2 Jun 2021 14:21:02 +0300
From:   Mauri Sandberg <maukka@....kapsi.fi>
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:     Mauri Sandberg <sandberg@...lfence.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Drew Fustini <drew@...gleboard.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] dt-bindings: gpio-mux-input: add documentation

Hi Linus,

On 2.6.2021 13.35, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 11:31 AM Mauri Sandberg <maukka@....kapsi.fi> wrote:
> 
>> But there is a small detail that needs to be sorted out.
>> The name 'gpio-mux'
>> has already been taken by 'mux-gpio' driver [2] [3].
> 
> What about "gpio-multiplexer"?
> 
> It is not good that the thing using GPIOs to do multiplexing
> has take a name that seem to infer that GPIOs are being
> multiplexed. Now we can't do much about that we just have
> to live with it. How typical of formal languages to screw
> with the semantics of natural languages and create confusion...
> 

I am afraid having 'gpio-mux' and 'gpio-multiplexer' would create too 
many what-were-they-thinking moments for any unfortunate reader so I 
would rather choose something else. Can we just call it 'gpio-cascade' 
without referral to the underlying mux? Maybe at somepoint in future 
something else could be used in its place too.

-- Mauri