linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 00/10] gpio: sysfs: add a per-chip export/unexport attribute pair

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: <20250702110127.GA51968@rigel>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2025 19:01:27 +0800
From: Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc: Jan Lübbe <jlu@...gutronix.de>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>,
	Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@...gutronix.de>, Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/10] gpio: sysfs: add a per-chip export/unexport
 attribute pair

On Wed, Jul 02, 2025 at 12:28:01PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 12:12 PM Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I tend to not interpret it as adding new features. We really just
> > > *move* what exists under a slightly different path when you think
> > > about it.
> > >
> > > So what are you suggesting, remove the `edge` attribute and polling
> > > features from the new `value` attribute?
> > >
> >
> > Exactly. I'm not suggesting ANY changes to the old sysfs, only your new
> > non-global numbering version.  The idea being don't port everything over
> > from the old sysfs - just the core feature set that non-cdev users need.
> >
>
> I mean, if someone shows up saying they need this or that from the old
> sysfs and without they won't switch, we can always add it back I
> guess... Much easier than removing something that's carved in stone.
>

Exactly - expect to be supporting whatever goes in now forever.

> Anything else should go away? `active_low`?
>

I don't personally see any value in 'active_low' in the sysfs API if you
drop edges. It is easy enough to flip values as necessary in userspace.
(From time to time I think it should've been dropped from cdev in v2 but, as
above, it is carved in stone now so oh well...)

Cheers,
Kent.