linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Introduce configfs-based interface for gpio-aggregator

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: <CAMRc=Mc5WWNErJfEQ4sFRQm_+vDRMa7KBKSPSnP3W8scu4G19A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2025 21:47:47 +0100
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To: Koichiro Den <koichiro.den@...onical.com>
Cc: linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, geert+renesas@...der.be, 
	linus.walleij@...aro.org, maciej.borzecki@...onical.com, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Introduce configfs-based interface for gpio-aggregator

On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 7:40 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote:
>
> While at it: there's no reason to impose a
> naming convention of lineX, lineY etc., the names don't matter for the
> aggregator setup (unlike gpio-sim where they indicate the offset of
> the line they concern).
>

Scratch that part. There's a good reason for that - the ordering of
lines within the aggregator. I'm just not sure whether we should
impose a strict naming where - for an aggregator of 3 lines total - we
expect there to exist groups named line0, line1 and line2 or if we
should be more lenient and possibly sort whatever names the user
provides alphabetically?

Bart