linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] i2c: Allow recovery of the initial IRQ by an I2C client device.

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:   Fri, 22 Feb 2019 12:31:59 +0100
From:   Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
To:     Charles Keepax <ckeepax@...nsource.cirrus.com>
Cc:     Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>,
        Jim Broadus <jbroadus@...il.com>,
        Linux I2C <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: Allow recovery of the initial IRQ by an I2C client
 device.


> > > But I still have the feeling that the problem is not solved at the
> > > right place. In i2c_new_device() we are storing parts of the fields of
> > > struct i2c_board_info, and when resetting the irq we are losing
> > > information. This patch solves that, but I wonder if the IRQ should
> > > not be 'simply' set in i2c_device_probe(). This means we also need to
> > > store the .resources of info, but I have a feeling this will be less
> > > error prone in the future.
> > > 
> > > But this is just my guts telling me something is not right. I would
> > > perfectly understand if we want to get this merged ASAP.
> > > 
> > > So given that the code is correct, this is my:
> > > Reviewed-by: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>
> > > 
> > > But at least I have expressed my feelings :)
> > 
> > Which I can relate to very much. I see the code solves the issue but my
> > feeling is that we are patching around something which should be handled
> > differently in general.
> > 
> > Is somebody willing to research this further?
> > 
> > Thanks for your input.
> > 
> 
> I would be willing to have more of a look at it but am slightly
> nervous I am not right person as all the systems I currently work
> with are DT based so don't really exemplify the issue at all.

Thank you! Well, I'll be there, too. Discussing, reviewing, testing. And
if we have Benjamin for that on board as well, then I think we have a
good start for that task :) Others are more than welcome to join, too,
of course.


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)