linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] irqchip: imgpdc: Set sys wake polarities to active high

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]

Date:   Thu, 5 Oct 2017 15:37:58 +0100
From:   Ed Blake <ed.blake@...drel.com>
To:     James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>
Cc:     tglx@...utronix.de, jason@...edaemon.net, marc.zyngier@....com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] irqchip: imgpdc: Set sys wake polarities to active
 high

Hi James,


Thanks for the review.


On 04/10/17 14:14, James Hogan wrote:
> Hi Ed,
>
> On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 10:55:58AM +0100, Ed Blake wrote:
>> Set all sys wake polarities to active high during initial setup.  The
>> default is active low, which currently causes the 'flow_type' passed
>> into the set_type function to be effectively inverted.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ed Blake <ed.blake@...drel.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/irqchip/irq-imgpdc.c | 10 ++++++++--
>>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-imgpdc.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-imgpdc.c
>> index 22d8f8a..d1bcfef 100644
>> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-imgpdc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-imgpdc.c
>> @@ -49,6 +49,8 @@
>>  #define PDC_IRQ_ROUTE_EXT_EN_WD		0x00000004
>>  #define PDC_IRQ_ROUTE_EXT_EN_IR		0x00000002
>>  #define PDC_IRQ_ROUTE_EXT_EN_RTC	0x00000001
>> +#define PDC_SYS_WAKE_POL		0x00000020
>> +#define PDC_SYS_WAKE_POL_SHIFT		5
> I don't see this bit in the documentation for the PDC in TZ1090, so it
> must be new in later versions of the IP. Maybe that can be mentioned in
> the commit message or a code comment.

OK, I'll add this in v2.


> Does it need backporting to any stable branches (presumably v4.1+ for
> Pistachio's sake)?

Pistachio didn't have a PDC, so I don't think this needs backporting.

Ed.