linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] gpio: add gpio-line-mux driver

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: <CAMRc=MdkkRnwxx3vcMB3duOteQNdC9eb+A1P4GActou=xY9yJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2025 16:37:08 +0100
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To: Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
Cc: Jonas Jelonek <jelonek.jonas@...il.com>, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, 
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, 
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, 
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Thomas Richard <thomas.richard@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] gpio: add gpio-line-mux driver

On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 3:19 PM Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> 2025-11-05 at 14:24, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 2:23 PM Jonas Jelonek <jelonek.jonas@...il.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Bartosz,
> >>
> >> On 05.11.25 14:15, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> >>> Hi Jonas!
> >>>
> >>> This looks good, I'm ready to queue it but I'm afraid the consumer
> >>> label "shared" will logically conflict with the work I'm doing on the
> >>> shared GPIO support[1] as the shared GPIOs will appear as proxy
> >>> devices containing the name "shared". Do you see any problem with
> >>> changing the label to "gpio-mux"? I can even change it myself when
> >>> applying.
> >>
> >> Another name is fine for me if it conflicts with your work, as long as the name is obvious
> >> enough. Not sure about "gpio-mux" though. Maybe "muxed-gpio"?. Just let me know
> >> what you think and if I should adjust it or you do.
> >
> > Yes, "muxed-gpio" is good. I can change it myself when applying.
> >
> > Bartosz
>
> Isn't that the name in the device tree?
>
> Is
>
>         muxed-gpio-gpios = <&gpio0 2 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>
> really satisfactory? Can you really make that change as you apply
> w/o a re-review of the binding?
>

Ah, that's what you get for revieweing with a fever. :/

You're right of course.

And yes, we'd need to modify the bindings.

> Or, are we talking about
>
>         glm->shared_gpio = devm_gpiod_get(dev, "muxed", GPIOD_ASIS);
>
> and
>
>         muxed-gpios = <&gpio0 2 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>
> ?
>

I would make it: glm->muxed_gpio = devm_gpiod_get(dev, "muxed", GPIOD_ASIS);

Jonas, could you please send another version with that addressed both
here and in the bindings?

Bartosz