linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 05/14] mfd: sec: Use consistent S2MPS11 RTC alarm interrupt indexes

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:	Wed, 12 Feb 2014 15:48:15 +0000
From:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:	Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>
Cc:	Sangbeom Kim <sbkim73@...sung.com>,
	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
	Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/14] mfd: sec: Use consistent S2MPS11 RTC alarm
 interrupt indexes

> > > > > The S2MPS11 RTC has two alarms: alarm0 and alarm1 (corresponding
> > > > > interrupts are named similarly). Use consistent names for interrupts to
> > > > > limit possible errors.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  drivers/mfd/sec-irq.c           |    8 ++++----
> > > > >  include/linux/mfd/samsung/irq.h |    4 ++--
> > > > >  2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > <snip>
> > > > 
> > > > >  #define S2MPS11_IRQ_RTC60S_MASK		(1 << 0)
> > > > >  #define S2MPS11_IRQ_RTCA1_MASK		(1 << 1)
> > > > > -#define S2MPS11_IRQ_RTCA2_MASK		(1 << 2)
> > > > > +#define S2MPS11_IRQ_RTCA0_MASK		(1 << 2)
> > > > 
> > > > This doesn't look correct to me.
> > > 
> > > It is just renaming RTCA2 to RTCA0 because there is no "alarm 2"
> > > registers. Actually the behavior of driver does not change (especially
> > > that there is no RTC driver for S2MPS11) but now it looks properly:
> > >  - set ALARM0 registers for RTCA0 interrupt,
> > >  - set ALARM1 registers for RTCA1 interrupt,
> > > 
> > > This patch is not essential.
> > 
> > I mean the logic.
> > 
> > If these masks are used for registers then I assume RTCA0 would be
> > BIT(1) amd RTCA1 would be BIT(2), but this patch swaps them round.
> 
> 
> Yes, one could assume that and in case of S5M8767 this is right (the
> order is proper)... but on S2MPS11/S2MPS14 this is reverted:
>  - BIT(0): RTC periodic 60s
>  - BIT(1): RTC Alarm 1
>  - BIT(2): RTC Alarm 0
> 
> The original code (BIT(1) for RTCA1 and BIT(2) for RTCA2) was wrong here
> and may lead to errors. I think that this was changed during mainstream
> process to match S5M8767. However some old internal driver sources for
> S2MPS11 have:
> #define S2MPS11_IRQ_RTCA2_MASK          (1 << 1)
> #define S2MPS11_IRQ_RTCA1_MASK          (1 << 2)

Okay, if you're happy that this is correct:
  Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>

> > > > >  #define S2MPS11_IRQ_SMPL_MASK		(1 << 3)
> > > > >  #define S2MPS11_IRQ_RTC1S_MASK		(1 << 4)
> > > > >  #define S2MPS11_IRQ_WTSR_MASK		(1 << 5)
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
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/