| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAMRc=MeC85QLFYXdq3v_4rC=jst3PoSTOJz61GFEpw_yKa+iMw@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2024 19:08:48 +0100 From: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> To: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org> Cc: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@...nel.org>, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org, Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] gpiolib: fix debugfs dangling chip separator On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 6:07 PM Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 06:02:43PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > > But with this change we go from an incorrect: > > > > # cat /sys/kernel/debug/gpio > > gpiochip0: (dangling chip) > > gpiochip1: (dangling chip) > > gpiochip2: (dangling chip)root@...ux86-64:~# > > > > to still incorrect: > > > > # cat /sys/kernel/debug/gpio > > gpiochip0: (dangling chip) > > > > gpiochip1: (dangling chip) > > > > gpiochip2: (dangling chip) > > Why do you think this is incorrect? Every chip section is separated by > an empty line, just as it should be: > > gpiochip0: GPIOs 512-517, parent: platform/c42d000.spmi:pmic@0:gpio@...0, c42d000.spmi:pmic@0:gpio@...0: > gpio1 : in low normal vin-0 no pull push-pull low atest-1 dtest-0 > gpio2 : in low normal vin-0 no pull push-pull low atest-1 dtest-0 > gpio3 : out low func1 vin-0 pull-down 10uA push-pull low atest-1 dtest-0 > gpio4 : in low normal vin-0 pull-down 10uA push-pull low atest-1 dtest-0 > gpio5 : --- > gpio6 : in high normal vin-0 pull-up 30uA push-pull low atest-1 dtest-0 > > gpiochip1: GPIOs 518-529, parent: platform/c42d000.spmi:pmic@1:gpio@...0, c42d000.spmi:pmic@1:gpio@...0: > gpio1 : in low normal vin-0 pull-down 10uA push-pull low atest-1 dtest-0 > gpio2 : in low normal vin-0 pull-down 10uA push-pull low atest-1 dtest-0 > gpio3 : --- > gpio4 : --- > gpio5 : in high normal vin-0 pull-up 30uA push-pull low atest-1 dtest-0 > gpio6 : in high normal vin-1 pull-up 30uA push-pull low atest-1 dtest-0 > gpio7 : out high func1 vin-1 no pull push-pull low atest-1 dtest-0 > gpio8 : in low normal vin-0 pull-down 10uA push-pull low atest-1 dtest-0 > gpio9 : in low normal vin-0 pull-down 10uA push-pull low atest-1 dtest-0 > gpio10: out high normal vin-1 no pull push-pull low atest-1 dtest-0 > gpio11: out high normal vin-1 no pull push-pull low atest-1 dtest-0 > gpio12: in low normal vin-1 pull-down 10uA push-pull low atest-1 dtest-0 > > gpiochip2: GPIOs 530-537, parent: platform/c42d000.spmi:pmic@2:gpio@...0, c42d000.spmi:pmic@2:gpio@...0: > gpio1 : in low normal vin-0 pull-down 10uA push-pull low atest-1 dtest-0 > gpio2 : in low normal vin-0 pull-down 10uA push-pull low atest-1 dtest-0 > gpio3 : in low normal vin-0 pull-down 10uA push-pull low atest-1 dtest-0 > gpio4 : out high normal vin-1 pull-down 10uA push-pull medium atest-1 dtest-0 > gpio5 : in low normal vin-1 pull-down 10uA push-pull low atest-1 dtest-0 > gpio6 : out high normal vin-1 pull-down 10uA push-pull low atest-1 dtest-0 > gpio7 : in low normal vin-0 pull-down 10uA push-pull low atest-1 dtest-0 > gpio8 : out low normal vin-1 pull-down 10uA push-pull low atest-1 dtest-0 > > Johan Ah, makes more sense in the context of mixed good and dangling output. Nevermind my comment. Bart
Powered by blists - more mailing lists