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  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]
Date:	Wed, 16 Apr 2014 17:56:54 +0800
From:	Chen-Yu Tsai <>
To:	Alexandre Courbot <>
Cc:	Maxime Ripard <>,
	Linus Walleij <>,
	Johannes Berg <>,
	"John W. Linville" <>,
	Arnd Bergmann <>,
	Heikki Krogerus <>,
	Mika Westerberg <>,
	Stephen Warren <>,
	"" <>,
	linux-wireless <>,
	netdev <>,
	"" <>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
	linux-sunxi <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] gpiolib: gpiolib-of: Implement device tree gpio-names
 based lookup


On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Alexandre Courbot <> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Alexandre Courbot <> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:20 PM, Maxime Ripard
>> <> wrote:
>>> Hi Chen-Yu,
>>> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 02:41:35PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
>>>> This patch provides of_get_gpiod_flags_by_name(), which looks up GPIO
>>>> phandles by name only, through gpios/gpio-names, and not by index.
>>> IIRC, gpios only uses the *-gpios properties, and not gpios/gpio-names
>>> pattern seen on various other things.
>>> Is it some new property you introduce? If so, please add it to the
>>> documentation.
>>> Now, I'm not sure that having two distinct representations of GPIOs in
>>> the DT is a good thing. Yes, it's looking odd compared to other
>>> similar bindings, but it's what we have to deal with.
>> Mmmm I *think* I somehow remember a discussion about this topic
>> recently, but I cannot find it. Maybe Chen-yu could point us to the
>> conclusion of this discussion and the rationale for (re)implementing
>> named GPIOs this way?
> Aha, here maybe:

They're also mentioned in:

> However I don't see a clear conclusion that we should implement that
> scheme. Not that I am strongly against it, but I'd like to see a
> practical purpose for it.

Again no clear conclusion on this. I wrote this as it was one possible
way out of the index-based GPIO stuff.

Hopefully others will chime in and we can decide whether this is what
we want or not.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists