linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2] regmap: regmap-irq/gpio-max77620: add level-irq support

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: <20181213182026.GX10669@sirena.org.uk>
Date:   Thu, 13 Dec 2018 18:20:26 +0000
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>
Cc:     mazziesaccount@...il.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        rafael@...nel.org, linus.walleij@...aro.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
        heikki.haikola@...rohmeurope.com, mikko.mutanen@...rohmeurope.com,
        vladimir_zapolskiy@...tor.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] regmap: regmap-irq/gpio-max77620: add level-irq
 support

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 04:05:55PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:

> One specific question hit me while doing this. Why does the regmap-irq
> core do default trigger type configuration? I did leave this in the
> patch - but to me it is strange. For me it would be unexpected that the
> HW default trigger level is changed by common code. I would understand
> if change was done by some board specific code, or code specific to a
> chip - but 'core' doing this seems wrong to me. Should it be removed?

I can't remember and can't find any record of any discussion of it which
is odd, might've been on IRC or something.  Let's just remove it and see
what breaks, since we generally provide the type along with the request
for the interrupt I'm not sure how often the default actually gets used.  
Possibly safer as a second patch though in case there is a good reason
that I missed so we can easily revert it.

Unfortunately this also collides with a change I applied earlier on from
Bartosz which supports chips that use masks instead of a separate type
register to handle types so it'll need respinning, sorry about that.  It
does look safe to me but it's possible I missed something.  Equally it
only seems to be some quite old Tegra systems using the max77620 so
perhaps mainline usage of affected devices is limited anyway...

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)