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: <aGUfL5DDZrhSG788@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2025 14:59:43 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
To: Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>
Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
	Jan Lübbe <jlu@...gutronix.de>,
	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 07:01:27PM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
> 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.

+1, this is my biggest worries about the interfaces proposed by this series.

> > 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...)

But in cdev case this is different. Active-low state is needed to be
HW independent. For sysfs I agree as it's _already_ HW *dependent*
(due to global number space in use at bare minumum).


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko