linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 08/12] pinctrl: qcom: use generic pin function helpers

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: <46a506ee-0472-4c7a-8fd8-b3a1f39105b5@oss.qualcomm.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2025 14:25:12 +0200
From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>,
        Alexey Klimov <alexey.klimov@...aro.org>,
        Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>,
        Sean Wang <sean.wang@...nel.org>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
        Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>
Cc: linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/12] pinctrl: qcom: use generic pin function helpers

On 7/9/25 4:39 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
> 
> Use the existing infrastructure for storing and looking up pin functions
> in pinctrl core. Remove hand-crafted callbacks.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
> ---

[...]

>  int msm_pinctrl_probe(struct platform_device *pdev,
>  		      const struct msm_pinctrl_soc_data *soc_data)
>  {
> +	const struct pinfunction *func;
>  	struct msm_pinctrl *pctrl;
>  	struct resource *res;
>  	int ret;
> @@ -1606,6 +1581,14 @@ int msm_pinctrl_probe(struct platform_device *pdev,
>  		return PTR_ERR(pctrl->pctrl);
>  	}
>  
> +	for (i = 0; i < soc_data->nfunctions; i++) {
> +		func = &soc_data->functions[i];
> +
> +		ret = pinmux_generic_add_pinfunction(pctrl->pctrl, func, NULL);
> +		if (ret < 0)
> +			return ret;
> +	}

It's good in principle, but we're now going to house two copies of
the function data in memory... Can we trust __initconst nowadays?

Konrad