linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 30/36] pinctrl: remove old GPIO helpers

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]

Date:   Wed, 4 Oct 2023 15:45:19 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 30/36] pinctrl: remove old GPIO helpers

On Wed, Oct 04, 2023 at 10:49:25AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 5:21 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 5:51 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote:

...

> > > Old variants of pinctrl GPIO helpers are no longer used. Let's remove
> > > them as well as convert all static functions in pinctrl/core.c that
> > > still deal with global GPIO numbers to using the gpio_chip + offset
> > > pairs.
> >
> > This patch does three thighs as I see it.
> >
> 
> I'd argue it just fold the code that lived in old functions into the new ones...
> 
> > First of all, it silently converts to RAII. Please, do this separately.
> 
> ... and while at it, it already switches to SBRM because why copy outdated code.

This is too big thing for "while at it".
If you care about that switch, do it beforehand.
But at bare minimum it should be a separate patch.

> > Second, it shuffles a lot of code between old and new implementations.
> > What I prefer to see is what the subject tells: only "-" (minus)
> > lines.
> > Third, it will become easier if you name the "new" functions better to
> > begin with, it will help a lot here.
> 
> I'll wait for Linus to tell me if he prefers one big squashed commit
> or a fine-grained history (I prefer the latter) before spending time
> splitting this commit.

Definitely, changing code to SBRM is out of scope of this series and should be
done in a separate patch at least.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko