linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/03] GPIO: Add TB10x GPIO 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]

Date:	Wed, 16 Oct 2013 14:58:56 +0200
From:	Christian Ruppert <christian.ruppert@...lis.com>
To:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Patrice CHOTARD <patrice.chotard@...com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
	Sascha Leuenberger <sascha.leuenberger@...lis.com>,
	Pierrick Hascoet <pierrick.hascoet@...lis.com>,
	"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/03] GPIO: Add TB10x GPIO driver

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 01:29:44PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Christian Ruppert
> <christian.ruppert@...lis.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 02:19:17PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> 
> >> It's not like I'm 100% certain on where to use one or the other
> >> construct (a mechanism like the above is needed for threaded
> >> IRQs I've noticed) but the chained handler seems more to the
> >> point does it not?
> >>
> >> The only downside I've seen is that the parent IRQ does not get
> >> a name and the accumulated IRQ stats in /proc/interrupts but
> >> surely we can live without that (or fix it).
> >>
> >> Since I'm a bit rusty on chained IRQs correct me if I'm wrong...
> >
> > OK, it took me a while to figure this back out again because as far as
> > I'm familiar with the IRQ framework you're right. The reason I'm not
> > using irq_set_chained_handler is that we have one driver instance per
> > GPIO bank and all GPIO banks share the same interrupt line. This means
> > every driver instance needs its own (different) user data and a simple
> > call to irq_set_handler_data(tb10x_gpio) won't suffice. I'm not aware of
> > any mechanism that allows interrupt sharing with the
> > irq_set_chained_handler() mechanism.
> 
> OK yes makes perfect sense. We'll live with this then.
> 
> I didn't see a new version of this patch with the other two, shall
> I just apply this last version in the pin control tree with the
> two other patches?

If you don't see anything else which needs changing please do so, yes.

Best regards,
  Christian
--
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/