linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] i2c: allow specifying separate wakeup interrupt in device tree

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20150810061621.GA1573@katana>
Date:	Mon, 10 Aug 2015 08:16:21 +0200
From:	Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
To:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc:	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
	Vignesh R <vigneshr@...com>, Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: allow specifying separate wakeup interrupt in
 device tree


> > I think it is a useful addition. Can someone add a paragraph describing
> > this handling on top of the new generic i2c binding docs?
> > 
> > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/505368/
> 
> Yes, I will.

Great, thanks!

> 
> > 
> > > @@ -659,20 +662,47 @@ static int i2c_device_probe(struct device *dev)
> > >  	if (!device_can_wakeup(&client->dev))
> > >  		device_init_wakeup(&client->dev,
> > >  					client->flags & I2C_CLIENT_WAKE);
> > 
> > I was about to ask if we couldn't combine this and the later if-blocks
> > with an if-else combination. But now I stumble over the above block in
> > general: If the device cannot cause wake ups, then we might initialize
> > it as a wakeup-device depending on client->flags??
> 
> I believe it is done so that we do not try to re-add wakeup source after
> unbinding/rebinding the device. With my patch we clearing wakeup flag on
> unbind, so it is OK, but there is still error path where we might want
> to reset the wakeup flag as well.

I was wondering if it wants to achieve that, why does it not
unconditionally use 0 instead of the WAKE flag.


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)