linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] gpio: tegra186: Add ACPI support

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, 30 Jun 2021 23:17:19 +0530
From:   Akhil R <akhilrajeev@...dia.com>
To:     <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
CC:     <akhilrajeev@...dia.com>, <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        <jonathanh@...dia.com>, <kyarlagadda@...dia.com>,
        <ldewangan@...dia.com>, <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>, <mperttunen@...dia.com>,
        <smangipudi@...dia.com>, <thierry.reding@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] gpio: tegra186: Add ACPI support

> > >What about doing like
> >
> >      gpio->secure = devm_platform_ioremap_resource_byname(pdev, "security");
> > >      if (IS_ERR(gpio->secure))
> > >              gpio->secure = devm_platform_ioremap_resource(pdev, 0);
> > >      if (IS_ERR(gpio->secure))
> > >              return PTR_ERR(gpio->secure);
> > >
> > >and similar for gpio->base?
> >
> > Wouldn't this cause a redundant check if it had already succeeded in getting
> > the resource by name? Also, could it happen that if the device tree is
> > incorrect, then one of the resource is fetched by name and other by the index,
> > which I guess, would mess things up. Just my random thoughts, not sure if it
> > is valid enough.
> >
> > >Wouldn't the following be enough?
> > >
> > >-       gpio->intc.name = pdev->dev.of_node->name;
> > >+       gpio->intc.name = devm_kasprintf(&pdev->dev, "%pfw",
> > >dev_fwnode(&pdev->dev));
> > >+       if (!gpio->intc.name)
> > >+
> >
> > How about this way? I feel it would be right to add the OF functions conditionally.
> 
> Looks okay, although I have a question here.
> 
> +   if (pdev->dev.of_node) {
> 
> Do we really need this check at all? If the OF-node is NULL then it
> doesn't matter if other fields are filled or not, correct?
> 
> What you need is #ifdef CONFIG_OF_GPIO (IIRC the name correctly).
> 
> > +       gpio->gpio.of_node = pdev->dev.of_node;
> > +       gpio->gpio.of_gpio_n_cells = 2;
> > +       gpio->gpio.of_xlate = tegra186_gpio_of_xlate;
> > +   }
> >
> > +   gpio->intc.name = gpio->soc->name;

Okay. It makes sense. Thanks Andy. I would make the changes and send out an updated patch.

--
Best Regards,
Akhil