linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND RFC 2/4] drivers: pinctrl: qcom: add wakeup gpio map for sdm845

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]

Message-ID: <91ca518e-3906-9790-a27d-a06d15105655@arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Aug 2018 10:26:55 +0100
From:   Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
To:     Lina Iyer <ilina@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     swboyd@...omium.org, evgreen@...omium.org,
        linus.walleij@...aro.org, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org,
        rplsssn@...eaurora.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, rnayak@...eaurora.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND RFC 2/4] drivers: pinctrl: qcom: add wakeup gpio
 map for sdm845

On 13/08/18 20:41, Lina Iyer wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 01 2018 at 14:04 -0600, Lina Iyer wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 01 2018 at 02:42 -0600, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2018 03:00:19 +0100,
>>> Lina Iyer <ilina@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Add GPIO to PDC pin map for the SDM845 SoC.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Lina Iyer <ilina@...eaurora.org>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-sdm845.c | 76 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> 1 file changed, 76 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-sdm845.c b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-sdm845.c
>>>> index 2ab7a8885757..e93660922dc2 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-sdm845.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-sdm845.c
>>>> @@ -1277,6 +1277,80 @@ static const struct msm_pingroup sdm845_groups[] = {
>>>> 	UFS_RESET(ufs_reset, 0x99f000),
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> +static struct msm_pinctrl_pdc_map sdm845_wakeup_gpios[] = {
>>>
>>> [huge array]
>>>
>>>> +};
>>>
>>> Why isn't that array part of the DT? I'd expect other SoCs to
>>> eventually use a similar mechanism, no?
>>>
>> I agree and it should be.
>>
>> One place I am thinking is to add it to the DT definition of PDC
>> controller as a data argument -
>>
>> 	tlmm: pinctrl@...000{
>> 	[...]
>> 		interrupts-extended = <&pdc 30 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH 1>,
>>                     <&pdc 31 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH 3>,
>> 		      <&pdc 32 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH 5>,
>> 						   ^
>> 						   |--- Provide the GPIO
>> 						   for the PDC pin here.
>> 	};
>>
>> 	pdc: interrupt-controller@...0000 {
>> 		compatible = "qcom,sdm845-pdc";
>> 		reg = <0xb220000 0x30000>;
>> 		qcom,pdc-ranges = <0 512 94>, <94 641 15>, <115 662 7>;
>> 		#interrupt-cells = <3>; <-------- Increase this from 2 ?
>> 		interrupt-parent = <&intc>;
>> 		interrupt-controller;
>> 	};
>>
>> Would that be acceptable?
>>
> Any ideas on how to do this better?

I don't think adding an extra argument to the PDC interrupt specifier is
that great. I'd rather see some associated array in the PDC binding
mapping an interrupt to a pin on which special treatment must be applied.

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...