linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v4 net-next 11/23] pinctrl: ocelot: update pinctrl to automatic base address

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: <YZPsIW2bfbBThtWj@piout.net>
Date:   Tue, 16 Nov 2021 18:36:33 +0100
From:   Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
To:     Colin Foster <colin.foster@...advantage.com>,
        Clément Léger <clement.leger@...tlin.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
        Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
        UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@....com>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Lars Povlsen <lars.povlsen@...rochip.com>,
        Steen Hegelund <Steen.Hegelund@...rochip.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
        Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 net-next 11/23] pinctrl: ocelot: update pinctrl to
 automatic base address

Hello,

On 15/11/2021 22:23:16-0800, Colin Foster wrote:
> struct gpio_chip recommends passing -1 as base to gpiolib. Doing so avoids
> conflicts when the chip is external and gpiochip0 already exists.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Colin Foster <colin.foster@...advantage.com>
> ---
>  drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-ocelot.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-ocelot.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-ocelot.c
> index cc7fb0556169..f015404c425c 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-ocelot.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-ocelot.c
> @@ -1308,7 +1308,7 @@ static int ocelot_gpiochip_register(struct platform_device *pdev,
>  	gc = &info->gpio_chip;
>  	gc->ngpio = info->desc->npins;
>  	gc->parent = &pdev->dev;
> -	gc->base = 0;
> +	gc->base = -1;

I can't remember why but I'm pretty sure I did that on purpose but this
indeed cause issues when the chip is external. I've asked Clément to
check, let's see what the result is ;)

>  	gc->of_node = info->dev->of_node;
>  	gc->label = "ocelot-gpio";
>  
> -- 
> 2.25.1
> 

-- 
Alexandre Belloni, co-owner and COO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com