linux-kernel - Re: [RFT PATCH 2/4] platform/x86: int3472: led: don't use gpiod_toggle_active

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: <adf04176-273d-e365-f765-f84c4e4f6a11@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 27 Sep 2023 11:14:03 +0200
From:   Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
        Mark Gross <markgross@...nel.org>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFT PATCH 2/4] platform/x86: int3472: led: don't use
 gpiod_toggle_active_low()

HI,

On 9/27/23 09:02, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 5:27 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 04:59:41PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
>>>
>>> Instead of acpi_get_and_request_gpiod() + gpiod_toggle_active_low(), use
>>> temporary lookup tables with appropriate lookup flags.
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> +     int3472->pled.gpio = skl_int3472_gpiod_get_from_temp_lookup(
>>> +                             int3472->dev, path, agpio->pin_table[0],
>>> +                             "int3472,privacy-led", polarity,
>>> +                             GPIOD_OUT_LOW);
>>
>> Personally I found this style weird. I prefer to have longer line over
>> the split on the parentheses.
>>
> 
> I in turn prefer this one. Checkpatch doesn't complain either way so
> I'll leave it to the maintainers of this driver to decide.

I'm fine with keeping this as is, using longer lines does not seem to make
things better here.

Regards,

Hans