linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] gpiolib: add support for software nodes

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: <Y20yElFGvm2GLtE9@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Nov 2022 09:17:06 -0800
From:   Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] gpiolib: add support for software nodes

On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 03:48:02PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 09, 2022 at 11:08:07AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 09, 2022 at 01:20:46PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 04:26:51PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> > > > +	pr_debug("%s: parsed '%s' property of node '%pfwP[%d]' - status (%d)\n",
> > > > +		 __func__, propname, fwnode, idx, PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(desc));
> > > 
> > > %pe ?
> > 
> > "/* %pe with a non-ERR_PTR gets treated as plain %p */".
> > 
> > I do not think users are interested in the address on success.
> 
> Hmm... Perhaps we can teach %pe to behave differently with, e.g. %pe0,
> modification.

Yes, and maybe we could even have %e for normal errors ;)

> But this is another story. So, let's go with your variant.
> 
> ...
> 
> > > > +#include <dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h>
> > > 
> > > Not sure why we have this here.
> > 
> > For convenience - so that users have access to GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH/
> > GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW and other flags.
> 
> Okay, would we make this as a guarantee then?
> 
> In such case a comment before this inclusion should be added to explain why
> we do that without any actual user to be present in the header file.

Just to close the loop - I added a comment reflecting this in v3.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry