linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/16] gpio: Tight IRQ chip integration and banked infrastructure

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: <20170915165750.GW5024@atomide.com>
Date:   Fri, 15 Sep 2017 09:57:51 -0700
From:   Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
To:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        "linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
        linux-omap@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/16] gpio: Tight IRQ chip integration and banked
 infrastructure

* Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com> [170915 08:10]:
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 03:54:56PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > Sorry about that. Let's move ahead with this now, it is neat and
> > clean.
> > 
> > What I want (as maintainer) is a bit of fingerpointing at the drivers
> > that need to be converted to use the new banking infrastructure
> > so they don't stay with their old crappy design pattern. OMAP is
> > a clear candidate right? (Added Tony to CC...)
> 
> OMAP should be able to use this infrastructure, but it may not want to
> because the semantics would change slightly. Currently OMAP registers a
> GPIO chip for each bank, whereas this infrastructure exposes multiple
> banks via a single chip.

Oh so you don't have separate interrupts for the instances?
Thanks for clarifying that.

> There might be some userspace that relies on the existence of multiple
> chips, but Tony can probably knows that better than I.

On omaps, each bank is a separate driver instance with it's own
interrupt. Maybe really all we need to do is get rid of the "bank"
naming, I think that's left over from 15 years ago when we did not
have separate driver instances. It seems we should s/bank/ddata/
on the driver to avoid confusion.

Grygorii, any comments?

Regards,

Tony