linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] drivers: irqchip: pdc: Add PDC interrupt controller for QCOM SoCs

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, 15 Feb 2018 21:24:56 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Lina Iyer <ilina@...eaurora.org>
cc:     jason@...edaemon.net, marc.zyngier@....com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        rnayak@...eaurora.org, asathyak@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] drivers: irqchip: pdc: Add PDC interrupt controller
 for QCOM SoCs

On Thu, 15 Feb 2018, Lina Iyer wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12 2018 at 13:40 +0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Feb 2018, Lina Iyer wrote:
> > > +enum pdc_irq_config_bits {
> > > +	PDC_POLARITY_LOW	= 0,
> > > +	PDC_FALLING_EDGE	= 2,
> > > +	PDC_POLARITY_HIGH	= 4,
> > > +	PDC_RISING_EDGE		= 6,
> > > +	PDC_DUAL_EDGE		= 7,
> > 
> > My previous comment about using binary constants still stands. Please
> > either address review comments or reply at least. Ignoring reviews is not
> > an option.
> > 
> > Aside of that I really have to ask about the naming of these constants. Are
> > these names hardware register nomenclature? If yes, they are disgusting. If
> > no, they are still disgusting, but should be changed to sensible ones,
> > which just match the IRQ_TYPE naming convention.
> > 
> >    PDC_LEVEL_LOW	= 000b,
> >    PDC_EDGE_FALLING	= 010b,
> >    ....
> > 
> > 
> Checkpatch doesn't like binary constants. I guess I will need to keep
> the enum definitions in hex or decimal. I will remove the binary from
> the comments though.

Well checkpatch is not always right.

> 
> commit 95e2c6023b0e4c8499fb521697f79215f69135fe
> Author: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
> Date:   Wed Jul 3 15:05:20 2013 -0700
> 
>    checkpatch: warn when using gcc's binary constant ("0b") extension
> 
>    The gcc extension for binary constants that start with 0b is only
>    supported with gcc version 4.3 or higher.

Can anything of this be compiled with gcc < 4.3?  

Thanks,

	tglx