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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAMRc=Mfyq=QG_xiEpL5wXB+sWwmnw30wWdRy4qm2xG7x4emiFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 Oct 2023 21:43:38 +0200
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
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 6:55 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> 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);
> }
>
> ?

Why would we do it? This is irrelevant for the final outcome.

Bart

>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
>
>