linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] pinctrl: intel: Add a generic Intel pin control platform driver

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:   Mon, 13 Nov 2023 14:12:48 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] pinctrl: intel: Add a generic Intel pin control
 platform driver

On Fri, Nov 03, 2023 at 07:57:38AM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 04:10:33PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

...

> > +config PINCTRL_INTEL_PLATFORM
> > +	tristate "Intel pinctrl and GPIO platform driver"
> > +	depends on ACPI
> > +	select PINCTRL_INTEL
> > +	help
> > +	  This pinctrl driver provides an interface that allows configuring
> > +	  of Intel PCH pins and using them as GPIOs.
> 
> Add here some description that explains why this needs to be enabled,
> for example for Lunar Lake. Now it is all too generic for distro folks
> to understand if this is needed or not.

OK!

...

> > + * Copyright (C) 2021-2023, Intel Corporation
> 
> That's 2023

As-is it is still valid and reflects the history.

...

> > +	ngpps = device_get_child_node_count(dev);
> > +	if (ngpps == 0)
> 
> if (!nggps)

0 is a plain number here (as count) and explicit comparison makes sense.
But I'm okay with another form.


> > +		return -ENODEV;

...

> > +	ncommunities = 1,
> 
> Why this is 1? Can't we have more communities?

As for now (version 1.0 of the specification) it's assumed that it's one
community per device node in the ACPI, so I would leave this as is (we have
also drivers with single community per device node, hence this is kinda
pattern. Should I add a comment?

...

> > +	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> > +	struct intel_pinctrl_soc_data *data;
> 
> 
> Change the ordering of the above:
> 
> 	struct intel_pinctrl_soc_data *data;
> 	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;

Sure.

...

> > +static const struct acpi_device_id intel_platform_pinctrl_acpi_match[] = {
> > +	{ }
> 
> And add the _CID here in this patch as I commented in the last patch.

OK! I'll squash the next patch into this one.

> > +};

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko