linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/8] gpio: tqmx86: change tqmx86_gpio_write() order of arguments to match regmap API

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: <a83d2274-3b45-4206-891d-b1e5bbfd6e23@lunn.ch>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 14:11:24 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc: Matthias Schiffer <matthias.schiffer@...tq-group.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Gregor Herburger <gregor.herburger@...group.com>,
	linux@...tq-group.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] gpio: tqmx86: change tqmx86_gpio_write() order of
 arguments to match regmap API

On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 02:03:35PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 9:46 AM Matthias Schiffer
> <matthias.schiffer@...tq-group.com> wrote:
> >
> > Conversion to actually use regmap does not seem useful for this driver,
> > as regmap can't properly represent separate read-only and write-only
> > registers at the same address, but we can at least match the API to make
> > the code clearer.
> >
> > No functional change intended.
> >
> > Fixes: b868db94a6a7 ("gpio: tqmx86: Add GPIO from for this IO controller")
> 
> This is not a fix.

Agreed.

I'm somewhat conflicted by this patch. It is a step towards using
regmap, but then says regmap does not make sense. So why make that
step?

Changing the order of parameters like this seems like it is will make
back porting bug fixes harder, unless all supported versions are
changed, which is why fixes make sense. Does the compiler at least
issue a warning if the parameters are used the wrong way around?

Overall, i'm leaning towards just dropping it.

	 Andrew