linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] regmap: irq: do not write mask register if it is not supported

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, 14 Feb 2013 17:25:13 +0530
From:	Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
CC:	"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] regmap: irq: do not write mask register if it is
 not supported

On Thursday 14 February 2013 05:05 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> * PGP Signed by an unknown key
>
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 04:36:08PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>> On Wednesday 13 February 2013 07:50 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>>>   	for (i = 0; i < d->chip->num_regs; i++) {
>>>> +		if (!d->chip->mask_base)
>>>> +			goto skip_mask_reg_update;
>>> Why is this inside the loop?
> You appear to have ignored this question.

I have accepted this to put out of loop.
Originally  thought that Inside loop, there is two register update one 
is mask and other is wakup. If I ignore the loop for mask_base= 0 then 
probably wake_ register will not get updated and hence it is inside the 
loop to update the wake register. If there is wake_base is 0 then this 
register update will be ignored anyhow.



>
>>> I'd also expect us to return an error if a caller tries to enable or
>>> disable an interrupt, or possibly to give different ops to the IRQ
>>> subsystem, rather than just silently claim we did what we were asked.
> if I remove the mask_buf at all then how do we tell the int_sts
> register is corresponding to which gpio handler?
> This doesn't sound like something that should be open coded in
> individual interrupt controller drivers, obviously it's a bit rubbish
> that there's no way to enable or disable the interrupt but presumably
> other hardware has the same "feature" and the IRQ subsystem ought to
> understand it.
>

To support such case, can we assume that mask is always enabled 
(interrupt enabled) so that it can be use in irq_thread to mask the 
interrupt status. So during initialization, if there is no mask_base 
register then all mask_buf is such that it enabled interrupt.


--
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/