linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] mrst_max3110: fix SPI UART interrupt parameters

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: <52681689.2090004@linux.intel.com>
Date:	Wed, 23 Oct 2013 11:33:45 -0700
From:	David Cohen <david.a.cohen@...ux.intel.com>
To:	balbi@...com
CC:	Alexander Shiyan <shc_work@...l.ru>, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
	jslaby@...e.cz, ning.li@...el.com, ivan.gorinov@...el.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mrst_max3110: fix SPI UART interrupt parameters

On 10/23/2013 11:21 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:10:48AM -0700, David Cohen wrote:
>>> My idea is always use threaded irq and passing flags into request.
>>> Like as:
>>> unsigned long flags = res->flags & IORESOURCE_BITS;
>>> ...
>>> request_threaded_irq(max->irq, serial_m3110_irq, IRQF_ONESHOT | flags, "max3110", max);
>>
>>
>> Oh, maybe we were talking about different things afterall :)
>> The reason this struct plat_max3110 was created is to allow platform
>> code (located under arch/x86/platform/intel-mid/device_libs/) to define
>> the irq edge type.
>> When I saw your comment I though you were referring to struct resource
>> (which has IORESOURCE_IRQ_* flags). But unlike platform_device,
>> spi_device has no struct resource * to replace the need of struct
>> plat_max3110.
>>
>> OTOH your suggestion can replace this piece of code:
>>
>> @@ -68,6 +69,7 @@ struct uart_max3110 {
>>          u8 clock;
>>          u8 parity, word_7bits;
>>          u16 irq;
>> +       u16 irq_edge_triggered;
>
> max3110 is already edge triggered:
>
> 495                 ret = request_irq(max->irq, serial_m3110_irq,
> 496                                 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING, "max3110", max);

Yeah. But in Merrifield case (at least the reference board used now) 
it's not edge triggered. I need this driver to support this situation
prior to send mrst_max3110 platform code for it.

>
> it would be nice a threaded IRQ instead of using a singlethread
> workqueue, though.
>

That sounds reasonable. I'll add this to my TODO list too. Thanks.

Br, David Cohen
--
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/