linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH v2 17/33] ARM: davinci: aintc: move timer-specific irq_set

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]

Date:   Tue, 12 Feb 2019 11:21:11 +0530
From:   Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>
To:     Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
        David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>
CC:     <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v2 17/33] ARM: davinci: aintc: move timer-specific
 irq_set_handler() out of irq.c

On 11/02/19 6:30 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 11/02/2019 12:25, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:

>> +	/*
>> +	 * Nobody knows why anymore, but this interrupt has been handled as
>> +	 * a level irq from the very beginning of davinci support in mainline
>> +	 * linux.
>> +	 */
>> +	irq_set_handler(DAVINCI_INTC_IRQ(IRQ_TINT1_TINT34), handle_level_irq);
>> +
> 
> Now, the real question is: why isn't that set as part of the
> set_irq_type() callback, instead of hardcoding it in the platform?
> 
> This is exactly the kind of information that should come as part of the
> DT or from the driver as one of the request_irq() flags.
> 
> It would save quite a bit of boilerplate code.

True, but I would keep this series feature/bug compatible with existing
code. Without that, tracking regression reports will be a nightmare. Its
a pretty major change already.

We can (and should) fix this, but I prefer thats done as follow-up patch
after this series is merged. That way a revert is easy.

BTW, I don't quite see which in-kernel module uses this interrupt. It
might be some out-of-tree code, or some code that since got removed from
kernel.

Thanks,
Sekhar