linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] gpio: dwapb: Add support for 32 interrupts

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 10 Apr 2018 15:00:31 +0000
From:   Phil Edworthy <phil.edworthy@...esas.com>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
CC:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Hoan Tran <hotran@....com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "Andy Shevchenko" <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        Michel Pollet <michel.pollet@...renesas.com>,
        "linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org" 
        <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] gpio: dwapb: Add support for 32 interrupts

Hi Geert,

On 10 April 2018 15:29 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:23 PM, Phil Edworthy wrote:
> > On 10 April 2018 07:24 Phil Edworthy wrote:
> >> On 09 April 2018 20:20 Rob Herring wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 03:22:30PM +0100, Phil Edworthy wrote:
> > [...]
> >> > > +- interrupt-mask : a 32-bit bit mask that specifies which
> >> > > +interrupts in the list
> >> > > +  of interrupts is valid, bit is 1 for a valid irq.
> >> >
> >> > This is not a standard property and would need a vendor prefix.
> >> > However,
> >> I'd
> >> > prefer you just skip any not connected interrupts with an invalid
> >> > interrupt number. Then the GPIO number is the index into "interrupts".
> >> Makes sense, I'll rework it to do this.
> > Err, what would an invalid interrupt number be?
> > If I use -1, I get a DT parsing error and 0 is certainly valid. If the
> > number is larger than the valid interrupt range I get errors during probe.
> 
> Perhaps using interrupts-extended instead of interrupts?
> 
> E.g.
> 
>     interrupts-extended = <&intc1 5 1>, <0>, <&intc2 1 0>;

Thanks for the pointer, I'll have a look.
Phil