linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] gpio: interrupt consistency check for OF GPIO IRQs

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: <CACRpkdZxFpw=EYB4A4nZu7LWjQb6QppVctUsBBDiCMsCBbqm5A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 23 Sep 2013 21:41:43 +0200
From:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
Cc:	Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez@...labora.co.uk>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Lars Poeschel <poeschel@...onage.de>,
	Lars Poeschel <larsi@....tu-dresden.de>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@...rix.com>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>,
	Enric Balletbo i Serra <eballetbo@...il.com>,
	Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
	Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>,
	Balaji T K <balajitk@...com>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	Jon Hunter <jgchunter@...il.com>, joelf@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] gpio: interrupt consistency check for OF GPIO IRQs

On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 9:43 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org> wrote:
> On 09/10/2013 06:52 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:

>> I'm a bit confused now. Doesn't the fact that gpio_request() prevents
>> double-requests mean that the use-case that you say that have not been covered
>> by this patch can't actually happen?
>>
>> I mean, if when using board files an explicit call to gpio_request() is made by
>> platform code then a driver can't call gpio_request() for the same gpio. So this
>> patch shouldn't cause any regression since is just auto-requesting a GPIO when
>> is mapped as an IRQ in a DT which basically will be the same that was made by
>> board files before.
>
> I'm not familiar with the board file path; Linus describe this.

Oh um? Not following, that stuff is right above, what is unclear
about this that I need to describe?

Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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/