linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 0/9] gpio: improve support for shared GPIOs

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: <CAMRc=MdOCHJEyPxN+-g71ux68=Mt_Q5P9611QO7Q8J9e8UJv_A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2025 11:41:52 +0200
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, 
	linux-sound@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, 
	Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>, Srinivas Kandagatla <srini@...nel.org>, 
	Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>, Mika Westerberg <westeri@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, 
	Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, 
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, 
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>, 
	Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, 
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, 
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/9] gpio: improve support for shared GPIOs

On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 7:32 PM Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 07:26:51PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>
> > Upon a closer inspection it turns out that this is not the case - the
> > ENABLE/DISABLE events are emitted when the *logical* regulator is
> > enabled/disabled even if this does not involve a change in the state
> > of the shared pin.
>
> It really should be the actual physical state change that triggers the
> event.

I guess so, but this would require some non-trivial rework of the
regulator core. We'd need some list of deferred notifications stored
in memory for when the physical state actually changes.

Bartosz