linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] cap1106: support for active-high interrupt option

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:	Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:44:02 +0200
From:	Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>
To:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
CC:	Matt Ranostay <mranostay@...il.com>, galak@...eaurora.org,
	linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	robh+dt@...nel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] cap1106: support for active-high interrupt option

On 09/22/2014 07:56 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 12:06:30PM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote:
>> On 09/21/2014 05:01 AM, Matt Ranostay wrote:
>>> Some applications need to use the active-high push-pull interrupt
>>> option. This allows it be enabled in the device tree child node.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Matt Ranostay <mranostay@...il.com>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/input/keyboard/cap1106.c | 6 ++++++
>>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/input/keyboard/cap1106.c b/drivers/input/keyboard/cap1106.c
>>> index b9c43b5..33e2590 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/input/keyboard/cap1106.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/input/keyboard/cap1106.c
>>> @@ -234,6 +234,12 @@ static int cap1106_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c_client,
>>>  			dev_err(dev, "Invalid sensor-gain value %d\n", gain32);
>>>  	}
>>>  
>>> +	if (of_property_read_bool(node, "microchip,active-high")) {
>>
>> I think the name of that property should make clear it's only changing
>> the interrupt output driver configuration. What about
>> "microchip,irq-active-high"?
> 
> Can we infer the setting from IRQ flags by chance?

Hmm, I thought of that as well, but there could be electrical wiring
setups that want the CPU's hardware pin in push/pull mode but the one on
the sensor chip in open-drain. I'd rather not make the assuption the
pins are directly connected and have both sides individually configurable.


Thanks,
Daniel

--
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/