linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] MIPS: alchemy: gpio: use new GPIO line value setter callbacks for the remaining chips

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aIZ3j3EjjGu5a-w2@alpha.franken.de>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2025 21:01:35 +0200
From: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: alchemy: gpio: use new GPIO line value setter
 callbacks for the remaining chips

On Sun, Jul 27, 2025 at 10:24:42AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
> 
> Previous commit missed two other places that need converting, it only
> came out in tests on autobuilders now. Convert the rest of the driver.
> 
> Fixes: 68bdc4dc1130 ("MIPS: alchemy: gpio: use new line value setter callbacks")
> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
> ---
> Thomas: this flew under my radar until it came out in autobuilder tests
> now. Thomas: if it's too late for you to take it through the MIPS tree
> for v6.17, can you Ack it and let me take it directly through the GPIO
> tree? This change is needed for us to complete the rework of GPIO
> callbacks during the next cycle.
> 
>  arch/mips/alchemy/common/gpiolib.c | 12 ++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

Acked-by: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>

-- 
Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
good idea.                                                [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]