linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] pinctrl: tps6594: Add driver for TPS6594 pinctrl and GPIOs

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: <CAHp75Vch5h8SRdLvFc=T_1C0ncj6Ti2KtN76RfZQSL0v22GXLA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 23 May 2023 14:03:38 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Esteban Blanc <eblanc@...libre.com>
Cc:     linus.walleij@...aro.org, lgirdwood@...il.com, broonie@...nel.org,
        a.zummo@...ertech.it, alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org, jpanis@...libre.com,
        jneanne@...libre.com, aseketeli@...libre.com, sterzik@...com,
        u-kumar1@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] pinctrl: tps6594: Add driver for TPS6594 pinctrl
 and GPIOs

On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 12:26 PM Esteban Blanc <eblanc@...libre.com> wrote:
> On Wed May 17, 2023 at 5:04 PM CEST, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 5:43 PM Esteban Blanc <eblanc@...libre.com> wrote:

...

> > Don't get me wrong, it's possible to have, but since it's unusual it
> > needs to be well justified. In the change you proposed you have
> > changed that, but I haven't seen where the new definition is used  (in
> > *.c files).
>
> Actualy it used in 2 places:
> - In the switch case of `tps6594_gpio_regmap_xlate`
> - In `tps6594_pinctrl_probe` when setting `reg_dir_out_base`
>
> I already sent a v5 with this change but I managed to fail my .config
> and this driver was not compiled... and it is not compiling... I feel so
> stupid.

People are prone to making mistakes. :-)

> I need to send a v6 now anyway. Should I convert all
> TPS6594_REG_GPIO1_CONF to TPS6594_REG_GPIOX_CONF(0)?

Again, if you want to leave that definition you need to well justify
why it's so special that code needs it. Easiest way is to use the
macro with 0 as an argument.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko