linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 31/62] pinctrl: remove pinctrl_gpio

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, 11 Oct 2023 19:54:55 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 31/62] pinctrl: remove pinctrl_gpio_request()

On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 02:07:59PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
> 
> There are no more users of pinctrl_gpio_request() so remove it.

My question was and still is why can't we preserve most of the code?
It seems with changing a prototype to a new one and using a temporary variable
will reduce the diff noise quite a lot.

Another question is can we actually derive old functions from _new ones?

Like

foo_new(struct gpio_chip *gc, unsigned int offset)
{
	...real implementation...
}

foo(unsigned gpio)
{
	...something to get gpio chip and offset...
	foo_new(gc, offset);
}

?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko