linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] change "client->irq >= 0" to "client->irq

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 3 Jun 2015 21:20:26 +0200
From:	Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>
To:	Octavian Purdila <octavian.purdila@...el.com>
Cc:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
	Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
	Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
	Peter Meerwald <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
	Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
	Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
	"linux-iio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
	rtc-linux@...glegroups.com, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] change "client->irq >= 0" to "client->irq > 0"

On 03/06/2015 at 20:05:56 +0300, Octavian Purdila wrote :
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Alexandre Belloni
> <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com> wrote:
> > On 03/06/2015 at 00:34:11 +0300, Octavian Purdila wrote :
> >> This fixes an issue introduces by commit dab472eb931b ("i2c / ACPI:
> >> Use 0 to indicate that device does not have interrupt assigned") where
> >> drivers will try to request IRQ 0 when no GpioInt is defined in ACPI.
> >>
> >> The same issue occurs when the device is instantiated via device tree
> >> with no IRQ, or from the i2c sysfs interface, even before the patch
> >> above.
> >>
> >> Linus, since the commit above was already merged in the GPIO tree,
> >> should these fixes be merged also via the GPIO tree (with ACKs from
> >> the others subsystem maintainers)?
> >>
> >
> > Side question, has it been considered that IRQ 0 is valid on some
> > platform and that means i2c devices will not be able to be wired to that
> > IRQ anymore? Though, I don't think there are any existing design that
> > does so.
> >
> 
> Device tree instantiation does not allow you to used IRQ 0 anyway. And
> here is what Linus said about this:
> 
> http://yarchive.net/comp/linux/no_irq.html

I'm pretty sure his point doesn't hold anymore 10 years later. I don't
believe ARM is "the small percentage of a small percentage of a small
percentage" anymore and it is probably more tested than it was at the
time. Anyway, I'm fine with the change, you can add my
Acked-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>
for your v2.

-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
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/