linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] Input: gpio-keys - add support for wakeup event action

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: <20180302023229.GA164361@rodete-desktop-imager.corp.google.com>
Date:   Thu, 1 Mar 2018 18:32:30 -0800
From:   Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
To:     JeffyChen <jeffy.chen@...k-chips.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, briannorris@...gle.com,
        dtor@...gle.com, dianders@...gle.com,
        Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@...labora.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Joseph Lo <josephl@...dia.com>,
        stephen lu <lumotuwe@...il.com>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
        Arvind Yadav <arvind.yadav.cs@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] Input: gpio-keys - add support for wakeup event
 action

Hi,

On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 06:04:22PM +0800, Jeffy Chen wrote:
> On 02/13/2018 06:13 AM, Brian Norris wrote:
> > > >
> > > >  	if (bdata->gpiod) {
> > > >+		int active_low = gpiod_is_active_low(bdata->gpiod);
> > > >+
> > > >  		if (button->debounce_interval) {
> > > >  			error = gpiod_set_debounce(bdata->gpiod,
> > > >  					button->debounce_interval * 1000);
> > > >@@ -568,6 +572,16 @@ static int gpio_keys_setup_key(struct platform_device *pdev,
> > > >  		isr = gpio_keys_gpio_isr;
> > > >  		irqflags = IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING | IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING;
> > > >
> > > >+		switch (button->wakeup_event_action) {
> > > >+		case EV_ACT_ASSERTED:
> > > >+			bdata->wakeup_trigger_type = active_low ?
> > > >+				IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING : IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING;
> > > >+			break;
> > > >+		case EV_ACT_DEASSERTED:
> > > >+			bdata->wakeup_trigger_type = active_low ?
> > > >+				IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING : IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING;
> > > >+			break;
> > What about EV_ACT_ANY? And default case? I think for ANY, we're OK
> > letting suspend/resume not reconfigure the trigger type, but maybe a
> > comment here to note that?
> right, will add comment in the next version.
> > 
> > > >+		}
> > > >  	} else {
> > What about the 'else' case? Shouldn't we try to handle that?
> i think the else case is for irq key, which would generate down and up
> events in one irq, so it would use the same trigger type for all these 3
> cases.

Not necessarily. It uses whatever trigger was provided in
platform/DT/etc. data. You could retrieve that with
irq_get_trigger_type() and try to interpret that. Or you could just
outlaw using that combination (e.g., in the binding documentation).

Brian

> i'll add comment in the next version too.
> > 
> > Brian
> > 
> 
>