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: <74603667-c77a-e791-d692-34d0201e5968@axentia.se>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2025 15:19:18 +0100
From: Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
 Jonas Jelonek <jelonek.jonas@...il.com>
Cc: 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

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?

Or, are we talking about

	glm->shared_gpio = devm_gpiod_get(dev, "muxed", GPIOD_ASIS);

and

	muxed-gpios = <&gpio0 2 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;

?

Cheers,
Peter