linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] gpio: tps65219: add GPIO support for TPS65219 PMIC

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: <9fa1a6e8-368a-3e22-aa84-8cad09f72a32@baylibre.com>
Date:   Mon, 22 May 2023 09:47:43 +0200
From:   jerome Neanne <jneanne@...libre.com>
To:     andy.shevchenko@...il.com, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
        Jonathan Cormier <jcormier@...ticallink.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] gpio: tps65219: add GPIO support for TPS65219 PMIC

On 20/05/2023 11:44, andy.shevchenko@...il.com wrote:
> Mon, May 15, 2023 at 05:36:46PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski kirjoitti:
>> On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 4:09 PM Jerome Neanne <jneanne@...libre.com> wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>>> +       gpio->gpio_chip = tps65219_gpio_chip;
>>
>> Aren't you getting any warnings here about dropping the 'const' from
>> the global structure?
> 
> But this is a copy of the contents and not the simple pointer.
> 
In many other places where this is done, the struct is declared like:

static const struct gpio_chip template_chip = {

After internal review, I changed this to:

static const struct gpio_chip tps65219_gpio_chip = {

This is because I didn't want to have this "template" that sounds to me 
like "dummy". Maybe I misunderstood and this "template" was used on 
purpose because this const struct is just copied once to initialize
tps65219_gpio->gpio_chip during probe.

Introducing tps65219_gpio_chip name is maybe confusing with 
tps65219_gpio struct.

I think the const should not be a problem here but the naming I used 
might be misleading. If you have a suggestion of what is a good practice 
to make this piece of code clearer. I'll follow your suggestion (use 
template? more_explicit name like ???).

Thanks for your time.