linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] drivers: irqchip: pdc: Add PDC interrupt controller for QCOM SoCs

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: <20180215203111.GD23714@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Thu, 15 Feb 2018 20:31:11 +0000
From:   Lina Iyer <ilina@...eaurora.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     jason@...edaemon.net, marc.zyngier@....com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        rnayak@...eaurora.org, asathyak@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] drivers: irqchip: pdc: Add PDC interrupt
 controller for QCOM SoCs

On Thu, Feb 15 2018 at 20:24 +0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Feb 2018, Lina Iyer wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 12 2018 at 13:40 +0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> > On Fri, 9 Feb 2018, Lina Iyer wrote:
>> > > +enum pdc_irq_config_bits {
>> > > +	PDC_POLARITY_LOW	= 0,
>> > > +	PDC_FALLING_EDGE	= 2,
>> > > +	PDC_POLARITY_HIGH	= 4,
>> > > +	PDC_RISING_EDGE		= 6,
>> > > +	PDC_DUAL_EDGE		= 7,
>> >
>> > My previous comment about using binary constants still stands. Please
>> > either address review comments or reply at least. Ignoring reviews is not
>> > an option.
>> >
>> > Aside of that I really have to ask about the naming of these constants. Are
>> > these names hardware register nomenclature? If yes, they are disgusting. If
>> > no, they are still disgusting, but should be changed to sensible ones,
>> > which just match the IRQ_TYPE naming convention.
>> >
>> >    PDC_LEVEL_LOW	= 000b,
>> >    PDC_EDGE_FALLING	= 010b,
>> >    ....
>> >
>> >
>> Checkpatch doesn't like binary constants. I guess I will need to keep
>> the enum definitions in hex or decimal. I will remove the binary from
>> the comments though.
>
>Well checkpatch is not always right.
>
>>
>> commit 95e2c6023b0e4c8499fb521697f79215f69135fe
>> Author: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
>> Date:   Wed Jul 3 15:05:20 2013 -0700
>>
>>    checkpatch: warn when using gcc's binary constant ("0b") extension
>>
>>    The gcc extension for binary constants that start with 0b is only
>>    supported with gcc version 4.3 or higher.
>
>Can anything of this be compiled with gcc < 4.3?
>
I don't see a reason why this would be compiled with a older GCC. I am
okay with ignoring the checkpatch errors. I was just not sure if I
should.

Thanks,
Lina