| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20130203170158.GO8476@sortiz-mobl> Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 18:01:58 +0100 From: Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com> To: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, arnd@...db.de, linus.walleij@...ricsson.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/26] mfd: ab8500-debugfs: Provide a means for a user subscribe to IRQs Hi Lee, On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:34:43AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > On Mon, 28 Jan 2013, Samuel Ortiz wrote: > > > Hi Lee, > > > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:22:23AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > > On Mon, 28 Jan 2013, Samuel Ortiz wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Lee, > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 12:55:49PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > Allow users to subscribe to and view IRQ events live from debugfs. > > > > I seem to remember that I got a similar patch some time ago for the same > > > > purpose and my answer was: Please use a UIO driver for this. There already is > > > > such driver, it's uio_pdrv_genirq. What your debugfs registration entry could > > > > do is adding a platform device for the specific interrupt number. This would > > > > avoid the irq handler registration and the sysfs entry creation, both things I > > > > believe are not very elegant and open coded. It also gives you an IRQ count > > > > implementation. > > > > Ideally, the UIO framework could be improved to support IRQ ranges (through > > > > IRQ domains) instead of the current single interrupt number. > > > > > > > > Have you considered going through that path ? > > > > > > I'm going to have to put this patch-set in the bin. Pulling this > > > patch, causes lots of conflicts to the remaining patches in the > > > set. > > I bet removing this one causes a lot of conflicts. I'm not saying it should > > absolutely be removed, but I'm afraid once it's upstream no one is going to > > look at improving it. > > This is really not the case. I trust you here, but usually people get busy with other stuff after their patchset is upstreamed and never get back to me on the initial issues. > I have every intention of fixing each and > every issue which are brought to my attention during the upstreaming > process of 'drivers/regulators', 'drivers/power' and 'drivers/mfd'. > > All I'm doing is making a list of all the fixups and re-writes and > I'll address them on the completion of the push. Hence if you're happy > for this to go in with my promise of improvement, it would certainly > make this task a great deal easier for me. I'll take your words here. I'll apply this one once you adressed the other issues I commented about on this patchset. > > And to be honest, having an IRQ handler from debugfs > > code looks weird to me. I know you can put all sort of crazyness into a > > debugfs entry, but still. > > > > > I'll start again from scratch and find another way to sync the ab* MFD > > > drivers. I might even have to do it manually i.e. throw out all > > > commit history and upstream it as my own patches pulled in from diffs. > > I don't have any problems with that. > > I'm sure you don't, but it's me that's doing all the hard work. ;) What's wrong with that ? ;) Cheers, Samuel. -- Intel Open Source Technology Centre http://oss.intel.com/ -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists