linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] gpio: vf610: allow disabling the vf610 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]

Message-ID: <ZbibA9QbOn19AXcn@gaggiata.pivistrello.it>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 07:45:23 +0100
From: Francesco Dolcini <francesco@...cini.it>
To: Martin Kaiser <martin@...ser.cx>
Cc: Francesco Dolcini <francesco@...cini.it>,
	Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>, Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] gpio: vf610: allow disabling the vf610 driver

On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 10:26:16PM +0100, Martin Kaiser wrote:
> Thus wrote Francesco Dolcini (francesco@...cini.it):
> 
> > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 09:58:57PM +0100, Martin Kaiser wrote:
> > > The vf610 gpio driver is enabled by default for all i.MX machines,
> > > without any option to disable it in a board-specific config file.
> 
> > > Most i.MX chipsets have no hardware for this driver. Change the default
> > > to enable GPIO_VF610 for SOC_VF610 and disable it otherwise.
> 
> > > Add a text description after the bool type, this makes the driver
> > > selectable by make config etc.
> 
> > > Fixes: 30a35c07d9e9 ("gpio: vf610: drop the SOC_VF610 dependency for GPIO_VF610")
> > > Signed-off-by: Martin Kaiser <martin@...ser.cx>
> > > ---
> 
> > >  config GPIO_VF610
> > > -	def_bool y
> > > +	bool "VF610 GPIO support"
> > > +	default y if SOC_VF610
> 
> > any reason for having this default y for SOC_VF610, but not for the
> > other SOC that uses the same variant (i.MX7ULP, ... ?).
> 
> Ok, it's probably not as consistent as it could be.

..

> Does this make sense?
sounds fair to me.

Francesco

> 
>    Martin