linux-kernel - RE: [PATCHv2 -next] MFD: MFD module of DA9052 PMIC driver

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]

Message-ID: <E2CAE7F7B064EA49B5CE7EE9A4BB167D151BB713DB@KCINPUNHJCMS01.kpit.com>
Date:	Mon, 9 May 2011 16:03:41 +0530
From:	Ashish Jangam <Ashish.Jangam@...tcummins.com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
CC:	"sameo@...nedhand.com" <sameo@...nedhand.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dajun Chen <Dajun.Chen@...semi.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCHv2 -next] MFD: MFD module of DA9052 PMIC driver


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Brown [mailto:broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 8:15 PM
> To: Ashish Jangam
> Cc: sameo@...nedhand.com; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Dajun Chen
> Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 -next] MFD: MFD module of DA9052 PMIC driver
> 
> On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 07:30:54PM +0530, Ashish Jangam wrote:
> 
> > +int da9052_unmask_events(struct da9052 *da9052, unsigned int events)
> > +{
> > +       uint8_t v[4];
> > +
> > +       da9052->events_mask &= ~events;
> > +
> > +       v[0] = (da9052->events_mask & 0xff);
> > +       v[1] = (da9052->events_mask >> 8) & 0xff;
> > +       v[2] = (da9052->events_mask >> 16) & 0xff;
> > +       v[3] = (da9052->events_mask >> 24) & 0xff;
> > +
> > +       return da9052_group_write(da9052, DA9052_IRQ_MASK_A_REG, 4, v);
> > +}
> > +
> > +int da9052_mask_events(struct da9052 *da9052, unsigned int events)
> > +{
> > +       uint8_t v[4];
> > +
> > +       da9052->events_mask |= events;
> > +
> > +       v[0] = (da9052->events_mask & 0xff);
> > +       v[1] = (da9052->events_mask >> 8) & 0xff;
> > +       v[2] = (da9052->events_mask >> 16) & 0xff;
> > +       v[3] = (da9052->events_mask >> 24) & 0xff;
> > +
> > +       return da9052_group_write(da9052, DA9052_IRQ_MASK_A_REG, 4, v);
> > +}
> 
> My previous queries about why this is here and not in the IRQ code still
> stand.
> 
> > +static void da9052_irq_sync_unlock(struct irq_data *data)
> > +{
> > +       struct da9052 *da9052 = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(data);
> > +       struct da9052_irq_data *irq_data = irq_to_da9052_irq(da9052,
> > +                                               data->irq);
> > +
> > +       da9052_mask_events(da9052, irq_data->event);
> > +       mutex_unlock(&da9052->irq_lock);
> 
> What happens if an event was enabled while the bus was locked?
Event stays in the hardware till it's not explicitly cleared. Hence there won't be any event loss.