linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] gpio: mt7621: support gpio-line-names property

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:   Sat, 3 Jul 2021 14:32:06 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Sergio Paracuellos <sergio.paracuellos@...il.com>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        John Thomson <git@...nthomson.fastmail.com.au>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        NeilBrown <neil@...wn.name>,
        René van Dorst <opensource@...rst.com>,
        Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@...dl.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] gpio: mt7621: support gpio-line-names property

On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 2:06 PM Sergio Paracuellos
<sergio.paracuellos@...il.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 1:30 PM Sergio Paracuellos
> <sergio.paracuellos@...il.com> wrote:

...

> -               ret = devprop_gpiochip_set_names(gc);
> +               ret = devprop_gpiochip_set_names(gc, 0);

I had been expecting that this parameter would be in the field of the gpiochip.

...

> The problem I see with this approach is that
> 'devprop_gpiochip_set_names' already trusts in gpio_device already
> created and this happens in 'gpiochip_add_data_with_key'. So doing in
> this way force "broken drivers" to call this new
> 'devprop_gpiochip_set_names_base' function after
> 'devm_gpiochip_add_data' is called so the core code has already set up
> the friendly names repeated for all gpio chip banks and the approach
> would be to "overwrite" those in a second pass which sounds more like
> a hack than a solution.
>
> But maybe I am missing something in what you were pointing out here.

Would the above work?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko