linux-kernel - Re: [Device-drivers-devel] [PATCH] i2c: add irq

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]

Date:	Thu, 6 Jan 2011 20:33:55 -0500
From:	Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>
To:	Ben Dooks <ben-i2c@...ff.org>
Cc:	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
	"Hennerich, Michael" <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>,
	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>,
	"uclinux-dist-devel@...ckfin.uclinux.org" 
	<uclinux-dist-devel@...ckfin.uclinux.org>,
	"linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
	"device-drivers-devel@...ckfin.uclinux.org" 
	<device-drivers-devel@...ckfin.uclinux.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Device-drivers-devel] [PATCH] i2c: add irq_flags to board info

On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 20:45, Ben Dooks wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 03:51:49PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 10:33, Jean Delvare wrote:
>> > Why do we have set_irq_type() if we're not supposed to call it? I am
>> > not claiming to be an expert in the area, but it seems totally
>> > reasonable to me that the same piece of code instantiating an I2C
>> > device is also responsible for setting its IRQ type.
>>
>> but we're back to the same issue mentioned earlier -- you cant have a
>> single kernel build with modules supporting multiple drivers
>> simultaneously.  we like to ship development boards with a single
>> kernel build on it with many modules.  then people can pick the addon
>> boards they wish to prototype with at runtime by plugging in the card
>> and loading the module.
>
> I also dislike set_irq_type() as it doesn't check whether there is anyone
> registered with the interrupt, which means that you could set the irq
> type of someone else's irq.
>
> I wonder if we should pass a struct resource instead, in case there
> are multiple interrupt sources, as well as having it registered with
> the right resource systems.

a resource struct would still only have a single interrupt info in it,
so i'm not sure how that would be better
-mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/