linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 20/51] Input: atmel_mxt_ts - Set default irqflags when there is no pdata

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: <5380938E.5010408@itdev.co.uk>
Date:	Sat, 24 May 2014 13:41:50 +0100
From:	Nick Dyer <nick.dyer@...ev.co.uk>
To:	Yufeng Shen <miletus@...omium.org>
CC:	Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	Henrik Rydberg <rydberg@...omail.se>,
	Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@...omium.org>,
	Joonyoung Shim <jy0922.shim@...sung.com>,
	Alan Bowens <Alan.Bowens@...el.com>,
	linux-input <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Meerwald <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
	Olof Johansson <olofj@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 20/51] Input: atmel_mxt_ts - Set default irqflags when
 there is no pdata

Yufeng Shen wrote:
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Nick Dyer <nick.dyer@...ev.co.uk> wrote:
>> Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>>>>> Make the irqflags default to be IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING if no platform data is
>>>>> provided.
>>>
>>> I think if there is no platform data we should use 0 as IRQ falgs and
>>> assume that IRQ line is properly configured by the board code or via
>>> device tree.
>>
>> Benson/Yufeng - do you still have a requirement to probe without platform
>> data or device tree? I'm just merging in some changes to add device tree
>> support, and it would simplify things a bit if I can drop this patch.
> 
> It has been working for quite a while for boards/devices that don't 
> provide platform data. If we drop the default IRQ flags, sure we can add
> code for each board to configure the IRQ separately, but that's just
> adding extra work. Is there strong reason why we should not do the
> default setting in the driver if it is not already configured in
> platform data?

OK, I will keep it in my tree for the moment, since you are using it.

The reason I checked is that in general, I would like to be conservative
about what is pushed upstream, because it will need maintaining for a long
time.

The other reason is that in fact Atmel recommend IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW for these
chips, not IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING, so there is a bit of an inconsistency here.
--
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/