linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC v2 0/7] pinctrl-scmi: Add GPIO support

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: <aLlSjZX_l8ifxL_h@stanley.mountain>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2025 11:49:17 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>,
	Michal Simek <michal.simek@....com>, arm-scmi@...r.kernel.org,
	Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
	Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 0/7] pinctrl-scmi: Add GPIO support

On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 11:03:43AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2025 at 9:38 PM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org> wrote:
> 
> > This is version 2 of the RFC.  The main reason I'm sending this is because
> > there was a bug in the first version where it didn't calculate the offset
> > correctly so pins and groups weren't linked correctly.
> 
> I'm thinking of applying patches 4, 5 and 7 of this patch set to get
> some movement in the code upstream and make less work for you
> to rebase the thing, would this be OK?

I think we need to hold of on 5.  I think patch 5 is the right thing, but
I need to make sure that it doesn't break anything.  I was hoping people
who care about it would let me know.

Applying patch 1 is pretty easy as well.  We could do that too.

Sorry for the delayed response.

regards,
dan carpenter