linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 13/21] pinctrl: remove unneeded 'fast_io' parameter in regmap

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: <aJzqmX-Nh3bWgjWn@apocalypse>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2025 21:42:17 +0200
From: Andrea della Porta <andrea.porta@...e.com>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Andrea della Porta <andrea.porta@...e.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/21] pinctrl: remove unneeded 'fast_io' parameter in
 regmap_config

Hi Wolfram,

On 18:14 Wed 13 Aug     , Wolfram Sang wrote:
> When using MMIO with regmap, fast_io is implied. No need to set it
> again.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>
> ---
> No dependencies, can be applied directly to the subsystem tree. Buildbot is
> happy, too.
> 
>  drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-rp1.c | 1 -
>  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-rp1.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-rp1.c
> index dadafc935dbb..6699b36349d0 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-rp1.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-rp1.c
> @@ -1627,7 +1627,6 @@ static const struct regmap_config rp1_pinctrl_regmap_cfg = {
>  	.reg_bits = 32,
>  	.val_bits = 32,
>  	.reg_stride = 4,
> -	.fast_io = true,
>  	.name = "rp1-pinctrl",
>  };

Looks fine to me, just a little heads up: the following patch
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250812092618.14270-1-andrea.porta@suse.com/

adds other two regmap_config with fast_io set to true, so we can
get rid of them too. I can do it in my patch in case I have to send a
second revision, or you can amend yours to cope with my changes and set
my patch as a prerequisite. I guess that it's easier for me since
I have only a single patch, while yours is a big patchset so better
to avoid the noise of a second revision.

Many thanks,
Andrea

>  
> -- 
> 2.47.2
>