linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] gpio: aggregator: restore the set

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: <4db46e2b-47c4-4c81-a36f-8b195b090d2f@bootlin.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2025 15:59:46 +0200
From: Thomas Richard <thomas.richard@...tlin.com>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
 Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
 Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
 Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>,
 linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: aggregator: restore the set_config operation

> 
> Is there any specific reason why you are doing this unconditionally,
> instead of only when any of its parents support .set_config(), like
> was done before?
> 
My idea was: it will be handled by the core, so the if statement is not
needed. But if we conditionally add the operation we can save some time
in case there is no chip supporting set_config().

Thomas